THE    HANDBOOK    SERIES 


Socialism 


DEBATERS' 
HANDBOOK  SERIES 

Debaters'  Manual 

Capital  Punishment    (2d  ed.  rev.) 

Commission  Plan  of  Municipal  Govern- 
ment (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Central  Bank  of  the  United  States 

Child  Labor    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Compulsory  Arbitration  of  Industrial  Dis- 
putes (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Compulsory  Insurance 

Conservation  of  Natural  Resources 

Direct  Primaries    (3d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Election  of  United  States  Senators  (2d  ed. 
rev.) 

Employment  of  Women 

Federal  Control  of  Interstate  Corporations 
(2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Free  Trade  vs.  Protection 

Government  Ownership  of  Railroads  (2d 
cd.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Government  Ownership  of  Telegraph  and 
Telephone 

Immigration 

Income  Tax    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl. ) 

Initiative  and  Referendum  (3d  ed.  rev. 
and  enl.^ 

Monroe  Doctrine 

Mothers'  Pensions 

Municipal  Ownership  (2d  ed.  rev.  and 
enl.) 

National  Defense 

Open  versus  Closed  Shop     (2d  ed.) 

Parcels  Post    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Recall    (2d  ed.  rev.  and  enl.) 

Reciprocity 

Single  Tax 

Trade  Unions 

Woman  Suffrage    (2d  ed.  rev.) 

World  Peace 

HANDBOOK  SERIES 

Agricultural  Credit 
European  War 
Short  Ballot 
Socialism 


Other  titles  in  preparation 

Each  volume,  one  dollar  net 


THE  HANDBOOK   SERIES 


Socialism 


Compiled  by 

E.   C.    ROBBINS 


THE  H.  W.  WILSON  COMPANY 
WHITE  PLAINS,  N.  Y.,  AND  NEW  YORK  CITY 

1915 


Published  October,  1915 


EXPLANATORY   NOTE 


The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  give  the  reader  a  general 
knowledge  of  Socialism.  Discussions  bearing  on  technical  phases 
of  the  question,  that  form  a  large  part  of  the  Socialistic  writings 
of  the  day,  have  been  purposely  omitted.  The  volume  is  one 
that  the  busy  reader  can  pick  up  at  odd  moments  without  having 
to  hold  in  mind  from  day  to  day  a  laborious  chain  of  reasoning. 
The  discussions  are  popular  rather  than  technical  and,  in  so  far 
as  possible,  are  non-partisan. 

To  facilitate  an  easy  reading,  the  leading  schools  of  Socialism 
are  treated  separately.  Thus  the  Utopians  and  the  Christians, 
although  having  some  common  beliefs,  are  each  given  a  section. 
The  followers  of  Karl  Marx,  the  acknowledged  orthodox  Social- 
ists, and  the  disciples  of  Edward  Bernstein,  the  avowed 
revisionists,  are  treated  separately. 

One  feature  of  the  book  which  will  commend  itself  to  the 
general  reader  is  the  extensive  bibliography.  Nearly  two  hun- 
dred references  to  some  of  the  best  Socialistic  writings,  both 
affirmative  and  negative,  have  been  gathered  together,  and,  in 
order  that  the  reader  will  lose  no  time  when  using  these  refer- 
ences, they  have  been  divided  into  five  groups  corresponding  to 
the  five  general  divisions  into  which  the  book  itself  is  separated. 
In  a  word  the  whole  arrangement  of  the  book  is  admirably  suited 
to  the  reader  who  wishes  to  gain  a  general  knowledge  of 
Socialism,  while  the  extensive  reference  lists  permit  the  person 
with  time  and  inclination  to  carry  on  extended  researches. 

E.  C.  R. 

September  I,  1915. 


CONTENTS 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Books  and  Pamphlets ix 

Magazines 

Utopian  Socialism x 

Christian  Socialism xi 

Marxian  Socialism xii 

Progressive  Socialism xiii 

Socialism  versus  other  Forms  of  Radicalism . xv 

Definitions  of  Contemporary  Socialism xvii 

ROBBINS,  E.  C.    INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT I 

UTOPIAN  SOCIALISM 

Merriam,  Alexander  R.     Some  Literary  Utopias 

Hartford  Seminary  Record        5 

"Simple  Life"  in  the  South  Seas Outlook      27 

Remarks  on  Mr.  Owen's  Plan Blackwood's  Magazine 

CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISM 

Ludlow,  J.  M.  Christian  Socialist  Movement  of  the  Middle 
of  the  Century Atlantic  Monthly  37 

Abbott,  Lyman.  Christianity  versus  Socialism 

North  American  Review  S1  ^^ 

Spahr,  C.  B.    New  Socialism Nation      57 

MARXIAN  SOCIALISM 

Marx,  Karl,  and  Engels,  Frederick.    Communist  Manifesto      63    **^ 

Spargo,  John.     Influence  of  Karl  Marx  on  Contemporary 

Socialism American  Journal  of  .Sociology      80    */ 

Scott,  Temple.    Savior  of  the  Working-Man Forum      97  i/   N 

Socialism  and  Labor Nation  102  ^     \ 

PROGRESSIVE  SOCIALISM 

Kleene,  G.  A.  Bernstein  Versus  "Old-School"  Marxism 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  107 


viii  CONTENTS 

Whitaker,   Herman.     Natural    Selection,    Competition,   and 

Socialism  Arena  129 

^  Value  of  Brains  in  the  Socialist  State. .  .Review  of  Reviews  143 

-^Miller,  Charles  R.    Why  Socialism  Is  Impracticable 

Century  145 

Socialist  Rule  of  Milwaukee Independent  155 

Berger,  Victor  L.     What  Is  the  Matter  with  Milwaukee? 

- Independent  157 

Debs,  E.  V.    Social  Democratic  Party Independent  162 

SOCIALISM  VERSUS  OTHER  FORMS  OF  RADICALISM 

Levine,  Louis.    Syndicalism North  American  Review    169 

Owen,  William  C.    Anarchy  versus  Socialism 180 

Spargo,  John.    Private  Property  and  Personal  Liberty  in  the 
Socialist  State North  American  Review    202 

DEFINITIONS  OF  CONTEMPORARY  SOCIALISM 

Martin,  John.    Attempt  to  Define  Socialism 

American  Economic  Association  Bulletin    215 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

An  asterisk  (*)  preceding  a  reference  indicates  that  the  entire  article 
or  a  part  of  it  has  been  reprinted  in  this  volume.  Many  of  the  magazine 
articles  listed  here,  as  well  as  similar  material  that  may  be  published  after 
this  volume  is  issued,  may  be  secured  at  reasonable  rates  from  the  Wilson 
Package  Library  operated  by  the  H.  W.  Wilson  Company. 

BOOKS  AND  PAMPHLETS 

Addams,  Jane.    Democracy  and  Social  Ethics.    Macmillan.  1902. 
Boyle,  James.      Minimum  Wage  and  Syndicalism.      Stewart  & 

Kidd  Co.     Cincinnati.  1913. 
Brooks,  John  Graham.       American   Syndicalism — the  I.  W.  W. 

Macmillan.  1913. 
Brooks,  John  Graham.       Social  Unrest;   Studies  in   Labor  and 

Socialist  Movements.     Macmillan.  1903. 
Campbell,   Reginald  John.       Christianity  and  the  Social  Order. 

Macmillan.  1907. 

Fillebrown,  C.  B.      A  B  C  of  Taxation.     Doubleday,  Page.  1909. 
Hillquit,  Morris.      Socialism  Summed  Up.     H.  K.  Fly  Co.  New 

York.  1913. 
Hillquit,  Morris,  and  Ryan,  John  Augustine.    Socialism :  Promise 

or  Menace.  Macmillan.     1914. 
Kirkup,  Thomas     History  of  Socialism,    rev.  ed.  A.  &  C.  Black. 

London.  1900. 
Kropotkin,    Peter    Aleksieevich.        Anarchism    and    Anarchists. 

Houghton,  Mifflin.  1879. 

MacDonald,  J.  Ramsay.       Syndicalism.      The  Open  Court  Pub- 
lishing Co.     Chicago.  1913. 
Marx,  Karl.      Capital;  a  Critique  of  Political  Economy.      3  Vol. 

Kerr.  Chicago.  1906-09. 

*Marx,  Karl,  and  Engels,  Frederick.    Manifesto  of  the  Commun- 
ist   Party.      Authorized    English    tr. ;     ed.    and    annot.    by 

F:  Engels.     Kerr.  Chicago.  1911. 
*Owen,  W.  C.      Anarchy  versus  Socialism.      pa.  Mother  Earth 

Publishing  Co.  New  York. 
Pouget,    Emile.      Sabotage.      Translated    from    the    French    by 

Arturo  M.  Giovannitti.  Kerr.  Chicago.  1913. 
Simkhovitch,  Vladimir  G.     Marxism  versus  Socialism.     Henry 

Holt  &  Co.  1914. 


x  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Skelton,  O.  D.     Socialism,  a  Critical  Analysis.     Houghton,  Mif- 

flin.  1911. 
Spargo,   John.       Karl   Marx;    His   Life   and   Works.       B.   W. 

Huebsch.  New  York.  1910. 
Spargo,  John.     Syndicalism,  Industrial  Unionism  and  Socialism. 

B.  W.  Huebsch.  New  York.  1913. 
Tridon,  Andre.      New  Unionism.      B.  W.  Huebsch.  New  York. 


Walling,  William  English.       Progressivism  —  and  After.       Mac- 
millan.  1914. 

MAGAZINES 
Utopian  Socialism 

Atlantic  Monthly.  101  :  566-8.  Ap.  '08.  Religion  in  an  Ideal  Com- 

monwealth.   G  :  H.  Gilbert. 
Arena.  28:511-6.  N.  '02.      Dream  of  the  2ist  Century.      W.  H. 

Cooley. 

Arena.  29:31-47.  Ja.  '03.    Divine  Quest.     B:  O.  Flower. 
Arena.  39:  586-9.  My.  '08.    New  Worlds  for  Old,  by  H.  G:  Wells. 

(Review.) 
Biblical  World.  41:365-73.  Je.  '13.       Ezekiel's  Holy   State  and 

Plato's  Republic.    C.  Baldwin. 

*Blackwood's.  13  :  338-42.  Mr.  23.  Remarks  on  Mr.  Owen's  Plan. 
Chautauquan  44  :  90-7.  S.  '06.  Land  of  Nowhere.  G  :  E.  Vincent. 
Chautauquan.  31  :  151-61.  My.  'oo.  Seeking  Utopia  in  America. 

E.  E.  Sparks,  il. 
Contemporary   Review.    57:1-19.   Ja.    '90.      Two    New   Utopias. 

E.  de  Laveleye. 
Contemporary  Review.  57  :  301-24.  Mr.  '90.     Communism.     E.  de 

Laveleye. 
Contemporary  Review.  89:487-97.  Ap.  '06.     New  Aristocracy  of 

Mr.  Wells.    J  :  A.  Hobson. 
Contemporary  Review.  94:  161-81.  Ag.  '08.    My  Socialism.    H.  G: 

Wells. 
Edinburgh  Review.  202:56-78.  Jl.  '05.       A  Modern  Utopia,  by 

H.  G:  Wells.     (Review.) 
Edinburgh   Review.   219:91-106.   Ja.   '14.       Utopian    Toleration. 

R.  H:  Murray. 
English  Review.   16:186-210,  321-41,   468-94;    17-30-57,   179-209. 

Ja-My.  '14.    World  Set  Free.    H.  G:  Wells. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xi 

Forum.   47:211-21.   F.   '12.       United    States   of   the   World;    a 

Chinese      Philosopher's      Plan      for      Universal      Happiness. 

G:  Soulie. 
Fortnightly  Review.  84:417-26.  S.  '05.      Wells  as  a  Sociologist. 

J:  B.  Crozier. 
Fortnightly  Review.  97 : 427-36.   Mr.   '12.     Great    State  and  the 

Countryside.     F.  E.  Warwick. 
*Hartf ordT  Seminary  Record.  8 :  203-26.  My.  '98.     Some  Literary 

Utopias.    A.  R.  Merriam. 

Hibbert  Journal.  13 :  124-37.  O.  '14.     Modern  Utopians  in  Con- 
flict.   J.  W.  Marriott. 
Nation.  95 : 330-1.  O.   10,  '12.     Coleridge  and  the  Susquehanna. 

G:  M.  Harper. 
Nation.  95 :  382.  O.  24,  '12.       Pantisocrats  on  the  Susquehanna. 

S.  P.  Sherman. 
*Outlook.  84 : 952-4.  D.  22,  '06.    The  "Simple  Life"  in  the  South 

Seas. 
Popular  Science  Monthly.  80:  606-15.  Jl.  '12.    Program  of  Radical 

Democracy.     J.  M.  Cattell. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  24:428-33.   F.  '10.     American 

Utopia.    F.  T.  Carlton. 

Review  of  Reviews.  39 : 609-10.  My.  '09.    Utopian  Socialists. 
Westminster  Review.  165 :  172-90.  F.  '06.    Burden  of  Troisilia. 

Christian  Socialism 

Arena.  34 :  39-44.  Jl.  '05.     Identity  of  Socialism  and  Christianity. 

J.  T.  Van  Rensselaer. 
Arena.  36:613-7.  D.  '06.    William  Morris  and  Esthetic  Socialism. 

T:  Dickinson. 
Arena.  37 :  520-4.  My.  '07.     Why  the  Catholic   Church  Opposes 

Socialism. 
Arena.  37 : 600-4.  Je.  '07.    Why  I  Am  a  Christian  Socialist,    j.  O. 

Bentall. 

Arena.  38:640-1.  Jl.  '07.    Church  and  Socialism. 
Arena.  39:374-80.  Mr.  '08.     Christianity  and  the  Social   Order. 

by  R.  J.  Campbell.     (Review.) 
Arena.  40 : 243-4.  S.  '08.    Church  and  Socialism. 
Arena.  41 :  47-52.  Ja.  '09.     Christian  Socialist  Fellowship.  Work 

of  the  Organization.     E.  White. 
*  Atlantic  Monthly.  77:109-18.  Ja.  '96.      The  Christian  Socialist 

Movement  of  the  Middle  of  the  Century.    J.  M.  Ludlow. 


xii  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Catholic  World.  82:450-74.  Ja.  '06.  Evolution  of  a  Socialist. 
M.  F.  Quinlan. 

Contemporary  Review.  56 :  734-52.  N.  '89.  Socialism  and  Chris- 
tianity. F.  H.  Plumptre. 

Current  Literature.  43 : 537-9-  N.  '07.  Church's  Growing  Sym- 
pathy with  Socialism. 

Forum.  14:686-93.  Ja.  '93.  Jay  Gould  and  Christian  Socialism. 
A.  T.  Hadley. 

Forum.  15 :  332-42.  My.  '93.  Menacing  Socialism  in  the  Western 
States.  F.  B.  Tracy. 

Forum.  21 :  193-200.  Ap.  '96.  The  Present  Outlook  of  Christian 
Socialism  in  England.  W.  Morris. 

Independent.  55:2097-106.  S.  3,  '03.  Christian  Socialist.  C:  M. 
Sheldon. 

Independent.  64:  1360-1.  Je.  u,  '08.    Socialism  and  Religion. 

Independent.  66 :  1304-6.  Je.  10,  '09.     Constructive  Socialism. 

*Nation.  48 : 478.  Jl.  13,  '89.    The  New  Socialism.    C.  B.  Spahr. 

Nation.  56 : 102.  F.  9,  '93.  Christian  Socialism  in  Practice.  J.  G. 
Brooks. 

New  England  Magazine.  38 :  748-65.  N.  '79.  "Orthodox  Socialism 
in  Germany.  M.  Laveleye. 

*North  American  Review.  148 : 447-53.  Ap.  '89.  Christianity 
versus  Socialism.  L.  Abbott. 

North  American  Review.  161 : 493-504.  O.  '95.  Is  Socialism  Ad- 
vancing in  England?  W.  G.  Blaikie. 

Outlook.  89 : 319.  Je.  13,  '08.  National  Conference  of  the  Chris- 
tian Socialist  Fellowship.  New  York. 

Outlook.  94 :  682-9.  Mr.  26,  '10.  Conquering  a  Nation  with  Bread. 
F:  C.  Howe. 

Putnam's.  3 : 92-100.  O.  '07.  Christian  Socialism,  What  it  Is. 
W:  H.  Mallock. 

Review  of  Reviews.  29 : 349-50.  Mr.  '04.  Primitive  Christianity 
and  ^Modern  Socialism. 

Westminster  Review.  143 :  597-602.  Je.  '95.  Collapse  of  Christian 
Socialism.  W.  Lloyd. 

Westminster  Review.  179:242-9,  404-11.  Mr.-Ap.  '13.  Catholic 
Church  and  Socialism.  P.  Dougan. 

Marxian  Socialism 

American  Economic  Association.  3 : 89-140.  My  '88.  Capital  and 
Its  Earnings.  J.  B.  Clark. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xiii 

*  American  Journal  of  Sociology.  16:21-40.  Jl.  '10.    Influence  of 

Karl  Marx  on  Contemporary  Socialism.    J :  Spargo. 
American  Journal  of  Sociology.  17:804-19.  My.  '12.    Socialism  in 

the  Light  of  Social  Science.    W.  Small. 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  44:  sup.  13-25.  N.  '12.     Origin 

of  Socialism,  Economic  Marx.    S.  N.  Patten. 
Arena.  38:458-61.  O.  '07.     Writings  of  Karl  Marx.     E.  Unter- 

mann. 
Contemporary   Review.  40:585-607.   O.  '81.     Socialism   of   Karl 

Marx  and  the  Young  Hegelians.    J.  Rae. 
Current   Literature.  49:180-4.   Ag.   '10.     Karl  Marx:    His   Life 

and  Work,  by  J:  Spargo.     (Review.) 
*Forum.  44 : 90-4.  Jl.   '10.       The   Savior   of  the  Working-man. 

T.  Scott. 

*Nation.  97 : 357-9.  O.  16,  '13.    Socialism  and  Labor. 
Nineteenth  Century.  65:435-52,   838-54;  66:331-48,  716-32.  Mr., 

My.,  Ag.,  O.   '09.     Missing  Essentials  in  Economic   Science. 

W :  H.  Mallock. 
North  American  Review.  199 :  145-50.  Ja.  '14.     Marxism  versus 

Socialism,  by  V.  G.  Simkhovitch.     (Review.) 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  10 :  1-33.  O.  '95.    The  Conclud- 
ing Volume  of  Marx's  Capital.    W.  Lexis. 
Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics.  20 :  575-95 ;  21 :  299-322.  Ag.  '06. 

F.  '07.    Socialist  Economics  of  Karl  Marx  and  His  Followers. 

T.  B.  Veblen. 
Political  Science  Quarterly.  23:193-219,  652-89;  24:236-68,  641- 

66;   27:73-91,  605-30.   Je.,   D.   '08,   Je.,   D.   '09,   Mr.,   D.   '12. 

Marxism  versus  Socialism.     V.  G.  Simkhovitch. 
Review  of  Reviews.  38 :  IO&-IQ.  Jl.  '08.    Karl  Marx  as  a  World 

Force. 
Review  of  Reviews.  43:375.  Mr.  'n.    Is  the  Death  of  Marxism 

at  Hand? 
Westminster  Review.  166 : 569-79.  Mr.  '06.    Capital  and  Industry. 

H.  L.  Cinders. 

Progressive  Socialism 

*  Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  18:391-419.  N.  '01.  Bernstein 

versus  Old-School  Marxism.    G.  A.  Kleene. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  44 :  sup.76-82.  N.  '12.  Avoid- 
ance of  State  Socialism.  S.  N.  Patten. 

*Arena.  24 :  129-44.  Ag.  'oo.  Natural  Selection,  Competition, 
and  Socialism.  H.  Whitaker. 


xiv  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Arena.  37 : 302-4.  Mr.  '07.    Socialism  and  the  Home. 

Arena.  37 :  579-96.  Je.  '08.  Democracy  and  Socialism.  J.  Mac- 
Kaye.  Reply.  Arena.  38 :  295-300.  S.  '07.  G :  F.  Williams  and 
T :  E.  Will. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  102:433-41.  O.  'o8i.  Education  and  the  Social- 
istic Movement.  J.  B.  Clark. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  107:580-91.  My.  'u.  Socialism  and  National 
Efficiency.  J.  O.  Fagan. 

Catholic  World.  85:323-34.  Je.  '07.  Economic  Motive  of  Social- 
ism. W.  J.  Kerby. 

Catholic  World.  94 : 497-504.  J'a.  '12.  Private  Ownership  and 
Socialism.  J :  A.  Ryan. 

Century.  71 : 856-9.  Ap.  '06.  Individualism  vs.  Socialism.  W.  J. 
Bryan.  Reply.  Arena.  36 : 359-63.  O.  '06.  T :  E.  Will. 

*Century.  79:903-8.  Ap.  '10.      Why  Socialism  Is  Impracticable. 
,        ,  C :  R.  Miller. 
*       (Contemporary  Review.  46:507-31.    O.   '84.       Socialism  as  Gov- 
x    /     eminent.    H.  A.  Taine. 

**   Contemporary  Review.  50:620-31.   N.  '86.     Economic  Socialism. 
H.  Sidgwick. 

Contemporary  Review.  101 : 519-28.  Ap.  '12.  Individualism  and 
Socialism.  Havelock  Ellis. 

Dial.  53 : 434.  D.  '13.      Culture  and  Socialism.      B.  R.  Wilton. 

independent.  52 :  2018-21.  Ag.  23,  'oo.      Social  Democratic  Party. 

E.  V.  Debs. 

Independent.  61 : 989-94.  O.  25,  '06.  Socialism.  The  Relation  of 
the  Middle  Class  to  the  Socialist  Movement.  H.  G :  Wells. 

*Independent.  68:  840-3.  Ap.  21,  '10.  What  Is  the  Matter  with 
Milwaukee?  V.  L.  Berger. 

*Independent.  69:  1481-9.  Jl.  21,  '10.      Socialist  Rule  of  Milwaukee. 

Independent.  69:353-8.  Ag.  18,  '10.  Message  of  Socialism  to 
Collegians.  U.  Sinclair. 

Independent.  79:282-3.  Ag.  24,  '14.  Socialism— Promise  or 
Menace:  Review  of  the  Hillquit-Ryan  Debate.  W.  J.  Ghent 
and  T.  N.  Carver 

Journal  of  Political  Economy.  3 :  247-52.  Mr.  '95.  Flint's  Chris- 
tian Socialism.  Review.  T.  B.  Veblen. 

Literary  Digest.  47:634-5.  O.  n,  '13.  Socialism's  Religious 
Faith. 

Nation.  43 : 409-10.   N.  18,  '86.     English  Socialism  and  Politics. 

F.  H.  Hill. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xv 

New  England  Magazine.  38:565-81.  Jl.  '79.  Nature  and  Prog- 
ress of  True  Socialism.  J.  B.  Clark. 

Nineteenth  Century.  74:384-401.  Ag.  '13.  Prospects  of  Religion 
Under  Socialism.  H.  W.  Clark. 

North  American  Review.  197:1-7,  181-8,  405-11,  556-65,  853-5. 
Ja.-Ap.,  Je.  '13.  What  Is  Socialism.  A.  M.  Low. 

North  American  Review.  199:  54-64.  Ja.  '14.  Disappearing  Right 
of  Private  Property.  Daniel  F.  Kellogg. 

Popular  Science  Monthly.  53 : 701-4.  S.  '98.  Competition  and 
Socialism.  D.  J.  Lewis. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  4:563-91.  D.  '89.  Economic  Basis 
of  Socialism.  G.  Gunton. 

*Review  of  Reviews.  22 :  353-4.  S.  'oo.  Value  of  Brains  in  a 
Socialist  State. 

Review  of  Reviews.  42 :  445-55.  O.  '10.  Milwaukee's  Socialist 
Government.  G:  A.  England,  il.  map. 

Review  of  Reviews.  43:725-6.  Je.  'u.  Socialism  and  National 
Inefficiency. 

Survey.  31 :  175.  N.  15,  '13.     Trial  of  Socialism  in  Schenectady. 

Westminster  Review.  125 :  1-31.  Ja.  '86.  Socialism  and  Legisla- 
tion. 

Westminster  Review.  141 : 258-64.  Mr.  '94.  Republicanism  ver- 
sus Socialism.  W.  Lloyd. 

Westminster  Review.  178:  144-51.  Ag.  '12.  Individualism  and 
Socialism,  and  Liberty.  R.  G.  Davis. 

Westminster  Review.  180:117-23.  Ag.  '13.  Fallacies  of  Social- 
ism. F.  W.  O.  Ward. 

Socialism  Versus  other  Forms  of  Radicalism 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  58:222-7.  Mr.  '15.  Single 
Tax.  W.  S.  O'Ren. 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.  59:148-56.  My.  '15.  Taxa- 
tion of  Land  as  a  Remedy  for  Unemployment.  B.  Hall. 

Arena.  26:292-7.  S.  }oi.  Single  Tax  as  a  Happy  Medium. 
W.  A.  Hawley. 

Arena.  35 : 366-72.  Ap.  '06.  Arguments  for  Single  Tax.  J.  Z. 
White. 

Arena.  34:500.  N.  '05.  Why  I  Favor  the  Single  Tax.  H.  H. 
Harding. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  112:737-46.  D.  '13.  Case  for  the  Single  Tax. 
F.  W.  Garrison. 


xvi  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Atlantic  Monthly.   113:27-37.  Ja.  '14.     Case  Against  the   Single 

Tax.      A.  S.  Johnson. 
Atlantic    Monthly.    113:545-8.    Ap.    '14.       Third    View    of    the 

Single  Tax.      E.  Woollen. 
Catholic  World.  99:  173-80'.  My.  '14.       Successors  to  Socialism. 

H.  Somerville. 

Chautauquan.  70:256-7.  My.  '13.     Socialists  and  Syndicalism. 
Collier's.   51:26.    S.    13,    '13.      Is   an    Increment   Tax   Feasible? 

F.  L.  Olmstead. 

Contemporary  Review.  103:53-61.  Ja.  '13.  Labour  Ideals— the 
Better  Way.  W.  R.  Bousfield. 

Contemporary  Review.  105 : 47-56.  Ja.  '14.  Syndicalism  and  the 
Labour  Movement.  J.  H.  Harley.  (Same.  Living  Age. 
280:  589-97.  Mr.  7,  '14.) 

Current  Literature.  44:461-8.  My.  '08.  Anarchist  Bombs  and 
Socialist  Theories  and  the  Union  Square  Demonstration. 

Engineering  Magazine.  44:833-41.  Mr.  '13.  Syndicalism  or  Co- 
operation? J.  Douglas. 

Engineering  Magazine.  44:929-31.  Mr.  '13.  Syndicalism  a  Pol- 
icy of  Ruin. 

Fortnightly  Review.  74 :  544-58.  O.  'oo.  Socialism  and  Anarch- 
ism. G.  Langtoft. 

Forum.  52:165-76.  Ag.  '14.  Abolition  of  Poverty.  A.  B. 
Mason. 

Harper's  Weekly.  57 :  13-4.  Ja.  '13.  Syndicalism  and  Its  Phil- 
osophy. E.  Dirnnet. 

Harper's  Weekly.  58:10.  Ja.  24,  '14.  Single  Tax  in  Western 
Canada.  J.  T.  McRoy. 

Independent.  64:538.  Mr.  5,  '08;  760-1.  Ap.  2,  '08.     Anarchists. 

Independent.  74:79-83.  J'a.  9,  '13.  Worker's  Only  Hope:  Direct 
Action.  A.  Tridon. 

Independent.  76:209-11.  O.  30,  '13.  Syndicalism — the  Creed  of 
Force.  A.  M.  Giovannitti. 

Literary  Digest.  48:478.  Mr.  7,  '14.  Single-Tax  Talk  in  New 
York. 

Living  Age.  278 :  739-46.  S.  20,  '13.    Anarchy.      H.  H.  Colville. 

Living  Age.  281 :  207-16.  Ap.  25,  '14.  Real  Syndicalism.  H.  W. 
Allen. 

Nation.  82 : 463-4.  Je.  7,  '06.      Control  of  Anarchists. 

Nation.  99 :  350.  S.  17,  '14.      Philosophy  of  Syndicalism. 

Nation.   100:333-4.    Mr.   25.   '15.       Reflections   on   Violence,   by 

G.  Sorel.     (Review.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  xvii 

*North  American  Review.  189 : 844-56.  Je.  '09.  Private  Property 
and  Personal  Liberty  in  the  Socialist  State.  John  Spargo. 

*North  American  Review.  196:9-19.  Jl.  '12.  Syndicalism.  L.  Le- 
vine. 

Outlook.  105  :  771-5.  Ap.  5,  '13.    Taxing  Enterprise.    R.  Spillane. 

Outlook.  105:115-7.  S.  20,  '13.     Progress  of  the  Single  Tax. 

Outlook.  107 : 629.  Jl.  18,  '14.    Anarchy  and  Dynamite. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  27 :  586-97.  D.  '12.  Recent  Tax  Re- 
forms Abroad.  E.  R.  A.  Seligman. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.  28:451-79.  S.  '13.  Development  of 
Syndicalism  in  America.  L.  Levine. 

Westminster  Review.  170:492-506.  N.  '08.  Alternative  to  So- 
cialism. A.  H.  Weller. 

World's  Work.  113:406-16.  Ag.  '06.      Red  Flag  and  the  Torch. 

DEFINITIONS  OF  CONTEMPORARY  SOCIALISM 

American  Economic  Association  Bulletin.  4th  Ser.  1 :  347-54.  Ap. 
'n.  Attempts  to  Define  Socialism.  J.  Martin. 


SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 
SOCIALISM 


INTRODUCTORY  STATEMENT 

Prof.  William  Howard  Taft  has  said  that  one  of  the  most 
important  questions  of  the  day  is  a  consideration  of  the  theories 
which  underlie  the  present  organization  of  industrial  society. 
Prof.  Jacob  Hollander,  in  a  recent  book,  suggested  the  possibility 
of  eliminating  human  poverty  through  a  reorganization  of  our 
economic  institutions.  Prof.  Richard  T.  Ely,  in  another  volume, 
traces  the  movement  away  from  what  has  been  considered  by 
many  to  be  the  "established  order,"  and  Prof.  F.  W.  Taussig 
thinks  that  private  property  is  on  trial  for  its  life. 

These  and  many  similar  statements  that  could  be  quoted  from 
men  equally  prominent  in  politics  and  economics,  reflect  clearly 
that  American  thinkers  are  aware  of  the  great  social  unrest  of 
the  times.  They  illustrate  more  than  that.  They  show  that  in 
the  minds  of  a  not  inconsiderable  part  of  the  people,  the  institu- 
tion of  private  property  must  justify  its  existence.  The  day  has 
passed  when  those  who  advocate  radical  changes  in  the  form 
of  industrial  organization  are  looked  upon  as  merely  the  impo- 
tent and  indolent — a  class  which,  unwilling  to  earn  its  own 
living,  tries  to  devise  schemes  for  usurping  the  wealth  of  others. 
During  the  last  fifty  years,  especially,  great  numbers  of  men  and 
women  of  unquestioned  integrity  and  ability  have  thrown  them- 
selves into  the  ranks  of  those  who  believe  in  profoundly  altering 
present  conditions.  Various  groups  have  been  formed,  all 
working  for  social  betterment,  but  each  with  its  own  particular 
program.  Among  these  the  Socialists,  because  of  their  numbers 
and  enthusiasm,  easily  hold  first  place. 

Few  people  agree  exactly  as  to  what  is  meant  by  the  term 
Socialism.  It  has  stood  for  many  different  things  at  different 
time  and  places ;  it  has  even  meant  different  things  at  the  same 


2<t  |  :  ,  :  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON  , 

time  and  place.  To  some,  Socialism  is  a  vague,  indefinite  move- 
ment. Indeed,  it  is  often  defined  simply  as  a  protest  against 
the  existing  order — anything  new  or  different  from  that  to  which 
men  are  accustomed.  To  others,  Socialism  is  a  specific  for  a 
given  social  ill.  The  western  coal  miner,  for  example,  thinks 
of  it  as  a  transfer  from  private  to  public  ownership  of  coal 
mines.  By  such  a  change  he  thinks  he  sees  himself  emancipated 
from  his  present  thralldom.  The  government,  as  his  task- 
master, will  be  lenient.  His  hours  of  labor  will  be  shortened,  his 
pay  increased,  and  his  working  conditions  immensely  improved. 
In  fact,  much  of  the  misunderstanding  and  back-biting  so  notice- 
able in  socialistic  writings,  pro  and  con,  are  due  to  the  fact  that 
different  writers  are  talking  of  different  things  under  the  general 
name  of  Socialism.  In  the  present  volume  no  attempt  is  made 
to  have  the  word  mean  the  same  thing  at  all  times.  The  very 
diversity  of  interpretations  given  to  the  term  is  one  of  the  things 
which  is  intended  to  be  emphasized. 

Although  Socialism  is  difficult  to  define,  and  may  mean  any- 
thing from  regulating  the  health  of  an  over-worked  glass-blower 
to  placing  all  the  instruments  of  production  and  distribution  in 
the  hands  of  a  central  government,  yet  to  make  no  attempt  to 
group  the  writings  on  the  subject  would  be  as  disastrous  as 
to  organize  them  too  minutely.  The  classification  used  in  this 
volume  is  not  original.  Types  of  Socialism  that  have  been 
almost  universally  recognized  are  given  under  the  following 
headings:  Utopian,  Christian,  Marxian,  and  Progressive.  This 
classification,  it  should  be  repeated,  is  not  inclusive,  and  if  any 
reader  is  disappointed  because  his  particular  kind  of  Socialism 
is  omitted,  the  compiler  pleads  lack  of  space. 

The  readings  selected  are  "popular"  rather  than  technical. 
For  instance,  the  Marxian  theory  of  value  is  stated,  but  no 
attempt  is  made  to  include  writings  to  prove  or  disprove  the 
correctness  of  the  theory,  except  in  so  far  as  the  situation  is 
debated  among  the  Socialists  themselves.  Discussions  of  that 
kind  must  necessarily  be  left  to  more  exhaustive  works.  If  the 
reader,  however,  is  interested  in  pursuing  in  detail  any  given 
topic,  he  will  find  numerous  additional  references  in  the  bibli- 
ography. 

As  far  as  possible,  the  readings  have  been  made  expository 
rather  than  argumentative.  This  purpose  has  not  been  entirely 
accomplished,  for  the  simple  reason  that  by  far  the  largest  num- 


SOCIALISM  3 

her  of  writings,  especially  those  giving  desired  information,  are 
argumentative  in  nature.  Such  articles  have  been  used  only 
to  bring  out  particular  points.  In  short,  the  aim  of  the  volume 
is  to  present  a  general,  popular  view  of  the  socialistic  move- 
ment. Shorn  entirely  of  its  partisanship,  Socialism  might  still 
be  interesting,  but  it  would  not  be  Socialism. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  ready  understanding  of  the  divisions 
used  in  the  book,  the  following  summary  is  added : 

The  term  Utopian  is  used  to  refer  to  those  people,  who  at 
various  times,  have  conceived  of  creating  an  idealistic  form  of 
government  here  on  earth.  For  the  most  part  these  earthly 
millenniums  have  been  the  idealized  expression  of  some  existing 
type  of  organization.  Thus  Plato,  in  his  "Republic,"  idealized 
the  Greek  city-state  of  his  day.  Sir  Thomas  More,  in  his 
"Utopia,"  worked  out  with  faultless  precision  a  government 
based  upon  a  form  already  in  existence.  Bellamy,  in  his 
"Looking  Backwards,"  attempted  the  same  thing  for  the  present 
age.  In  general  the  Utopians  can  be  divided  into  two  classes: 
Those  who  have  been  content  to  set  forth  their  ideals  in  great 
literary  masterpieces,  such  as  More's  "Utopia,"  Plato's  "Re- 
public," and  Campanella's  "City  of  the  Sun";  and  those  who 
have  tried  by  actual  experiment  to  establish  an  ideal  system  of 
government,  such  as  the  colonies  organized  by  Robert  Owen, 
William  Morris,  and  many  others. 

Christian  Socialism,  as  the  name  implies,  is  founded  upon  the 
teachings  of  Christ.  It  is  an  attempt  to  apply  Christianity  to 
social  and  economic  problems.  While  the  Christian  Socialists 
have  never  been  large  numerically  yet  they  have  had  enrolled  in 
their  ranks  persons  of  international  repute. 

Probably  the  majority  of  people,  who  have  read  about  Social- 
ism, instinctively  associate  it  with  Karl  Marx.  This  is  not 
unnatural,  for  he  stamped  his  name  indelibly  upon  the  move- 
ment. Both  during  his  life  and  since  his  death  his  followers, 
some  of  whom  seem  almost  more  enthusiastic  over  his  doctrines 
than  he  himself,  have  carried  his  ideas  to  greater  length  than 
warranted  by  facts.  This  attempt  to  apply  Marx's  theories  to 
times  and  conditions  for  which  they  are  manifestly  unfitted, 
and  for  which  Marx  probably  never  intended  them,  has  brought 
the  movement  into  severe  criticism  in  recent  years;  but  even  at 
their  worst,  the  principles  enunciated  by  Marx,  such  as  economic 
interpretation  of  history,  class  struggle,  revolutionary  evolution, 


4  SOCIALISM 

and    labor    theory   of    value,    are    still   the   mainspring   of   the 
socialistic  propaganda. 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  progress,  however,  the  theories  formu- 
lated by  Marx  have  been  attacked,  even  by  those  who  believe 
in  the  socialistic  movement  as  a  whole.  For  example,  many 
Socialists  today  prefer  to  substitute  the  doctrine  of  peaceful 
evolution  for  the  revolutionary  theory  advanced  by  Marx.  To 
meet  the  claims  of  these  newer  advocates,  a  section  on  Socialism 
in  relation  to  progress  and  evolution  has  been  added.  In  it  are 
found  the  views  of  some  of  the  most  modern  Socialists. 

Also,  because  there  is  much  confusion  in  the  popular  mind 
between  Socialism  and  other  radical  movements,  articles  have 
been  added  to  show  wherein  the  former  fundamentally  differ- 
ent from  such  doctrines  as  anarchism,  syndicalism,  single 
tax,  etc.  Lastly,  after  all  explanations  and  comparisons  have 
been  made,  a  series  of  definitions  on  contemporary  Socialism  is 
presented.  The  reader  is  at  liberty  to  choose  his  own,  but  in  so 
doing  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  there  will  probably  be  no 
uniformity  among  people  as  a  whole  regarding  any  given 
definition. 

E.  C.  ROBBINS. 

September  I,  1915. 


UTOPIAN  SOCIALISM 

Hartford  Seminary  Record.     8:203-26.    May,  1898 

Some  Literary  Utopias.    Alexander  R.   Merriam 

The  field  of  our  study  in  this  paper  has  been  comparatively 
neglected  in  the  recent  emphasis  of  social  problems.  Yet  it 
suggests  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  persistent  themes  in  litera- 
ture. Our  discussion  deals  chiefly  in  the  strictly  literary  and 
romantic  books  in  this  category — but  it  cannot  be  confined 
entirely  to  them;  for  there  are  books  which  have  no  fictional 
form  which  yet  are,  after  all,  politico-social  speculations  rather 
than  treatises,  ideals  governmental  and  social,  which  had  no 
actual  embodiment  in  the  author's  day. 

It  requires  only  a  casual  glance  at  history  or  among  ourselves 
today  to  recognize  the  idealizing1  social  tendency,  "in  the  past 
a  golden  age,  in  the  future  a  golden  dawn" ;  "in  some  other 
place" :  Utopia,  New  Atlantis,  City  of  the  Sun ;  "at  some  other 
time": — year  2000;  "if  this  were  so,"  "if  that  were  not."  Here, 
in  this  form  of  government,  in  that  political  economy,  is  the 
panacea  for  ill ;  there,  in  that  one  social  wrong,  or  in  one  human 
vice,  is  the  block  to  all  progress ;  if  removed — then  Utopia. 

Now  this  is  a  tendency  of  mind  which  is  capable  of  ranging 
all  the  way  from  the  grand  ideals  of  the  loftiest  minds,  like 
Plato,  to  the  shallow  utterances  of  some  political  charlatan;  or 
from  the  most  inspired  hope  to  the  most  pessimistic  grumble. 
It  is  a  human  tendency  which  often  lies  at  the  very  springs  of 
slow  progress  and  reform;  and  yet  many  a  political  revolution 
in  blood  has  sprung  from  Utopian  philosophical  ideals,  very  much 
in  the  same  way  as  many  triumphs  of  modern  mechanics  have 
been  made  possible  from  long1  and  seemingly  profitless  studies  in 
abstract  mathematics,  or  as  some  of  the  most  concrete  results 
in  science  are  the  consequents  of  hypothesis  and  experiment. 
The  father  of  modern  biology  was  the  poet  Goethe.  Now,  this 
large  fact  must  be  recognized  in  all  fairness,  and  though  applic- 
able in  only  a  partial  sense  to  some  of  the  particular  books  we 
shall  consider,  it  yet  furnishes  a  serious  background  for  some 


6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

of  these  lighter  touches  of  the  literary  utopist.  In  a  sense,  all 
the  larger  ideals  of  men  have  been  Utopian  when  regarded  from 
any  one  point  of  time,  or  one  range  of  experience.  The  Hebrew 
theocracy  in  all  its  large  ideals,  and  in  all  smaller  details,  spirit- 
ual and  economic,  was  never  fully  and  satisfactorily  actualized ; 
and  it  still  floated  like  a  banner  over  the  minds  of  our  own 
Puritan  ancestors.  The  Messianic  ideal  of  the  prophets  in  large 
outline  and  in  specific  detail  has  divided  for  thousands  of  years 
Jew  and  Christian  as  to  its  fulfilment  in  Christ.  We  have  no 
faintest  conception  of  how  large  an  ideal  was  wrapped  up  for 
the  Roman  and  Christian  world  both,  in  the  word  "Roman 
Empire"  and  later  "Holy  Roman  Empire,"  until  we  consider 
how  persistently  that  thought  of  world  dominion  ruled  secular 
and  'religious  ideals,  government  and  ecclesia,  until  its  last 
political  trace  is  seen  in  our  own  century.  No  one  can  read 
Augustine's  "City  of  God,"  or  Dante's  "De  Monarchia,"  without 
realizing  that  church  and  state,  ethics  and  politics,  government 
and  social  fabric,  of  which  we  keep  hearing  today,  are  all  inex- 
tricably blended  in  the  minds  of  men,  Utopian  as  the  particular 
phases  of  the  idea  seem  to  us, — and  that  far  above  the  actuali- 
ties of  then  and  now,  men  keep  building  better  than  they  know. 
And  so  again  our  growing  vision  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which 
is  beginning  to  sway  men's  minds,  is  apt  to  seem  a  new  discov- 
ery of  our  day,  and  already  is  it  concreting  itself  in  the  many 
beatific  or  vagarious  dreams  of  men,  based  on  partial  exegesis— 
and  yet  if  we  look  for  its  literary  source  it  has  its  roots  away 
back  in  the  O.  T.  theocracy,  is  older  than  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  which  yet  kept  the  idea  alive  through  the  centuries,  and 
still  what  Sir  Thomas  More  said  500  years  ago  is  yet  measur- 
ably true  today,  that  "the  greatest  parts  of  Christ's  precepts 
are  more  opposite  to  the  lives  of  men  of  this  age  than  any  part 
of  my  discourse  has  been." 

And  so  we  must  keep  in  mind  these  larger  ideals  of  men, 
which  do  represent  the  highest  actual  past  legislation  of  Moses 
and  Christ,  and  the  loftiest  speculations  in  philosophy  about 
right  and  justice  from  Plato  down  through  the  ages;  we  must 
remember  the  reality  and  value  of  these  things  in  order  to 
distinguish  the  large  general  truths  and  the  small  parodies  of 
them ;  the  essential  and  permanent  ideals  of  men  and  the  imagi- 
nary travesties  of  them,  so  as  to  be  just  to  some  of  the  great 
and  permanent  truths  proleptically  seized  by  visionaries.  The 


SOCIALISM  7 

difference  between  an  ideal  and  a  Utopia  is  largely  the  difference 
which  all  history  is  teaching  in  God's  withheld  completion  of 
man's  restless  programs.  A  Utopia  is  a  program  for  an  ideal, 
with  other  than  the  dramatis  personae  of  the  great  author  of 
history.  The  fault  and  peril  of  Utopias  is  oftener  with  their 
programs  than  with  their  ideals. 

Let  us  now  briefly  indicate  some  of  these  political  and  social 
strains,  and  then  take  up  somewhat  more  fully  the  principal 
ones  which  have  assumed  the  more  distinctly  literary  form.  The 
earliest  Utopian  conceptions  look  backward  as  seen,  e.g.  in  the 
Brahminic  conception  of  the  earliest  age,  as  the  best,  full  of 
purity,  plenty,  philanthropy,  and  praise.  Hesiod,  900  B.C.,  de- 
scribes in  "Work  and  Days"  the  reign  of  Saturn  as  an  age  of 
gold  in  the  past,  and  Ovid,  about  the  Christian  era,  takes  up  the 
same  strain  in  the  "Metamorphoses."  Traces  of  this  backward 
Utopian  look  as  an  impulse  are  found  even  as  late  as  Rousseau's 
idealizing  of  primitive  conditions  in  his  philosophy  of  society. 
Even  Plato,  after  he  has  constructed  his  ideal  "Republic,"  with 
no  conception  of  a  backward  look,  shows  in  the  "Timaeus"  how 
when  Socrates  expressed  the  wish  to  see  how  such  a  republic 
would  work,  Critias  undertakes  to  tell  him  by  tradition  through 
his  ninety-years-old  grandfather,  whose  father  was  a  friend  of 
Solon,  who  in  turn  had  it  from  the  priests  of  Neith  at  Sais: 
how  9,000  years  even  before  Solon  such  a  state  of  ideal  citizens 
withstood  for  a  time  the  attack  of  Atlantis.  But  now  gone  is 
that  vast  continent  in  the  deep,  and  gone  the  ideal  citizens  who 
withstood  the  shock  of  such  empire. 

But  the  great  body  of  Utopian  literature  has  had  less  to  do 
with  time  than  with  place.  The  fiction  of  place  otherwhere  has 
been  a  more  dominant  note  than  time  otherwhen,  either  as  the 
vehicle  for  satire  and  parody  on  present  society,  or  as  an  idealiz- 
ing of  society  in  another  place.  Aristotle,  the  critic  of  such 
fancies  and  the  critical  annotator  of  Plato  himself,  mentions 
several  such  fictions. 

This  literary  method  is  the  one  generally  followed,  as  we 
shall  see,  in  the  later  Utopias:  Campanula's  "City  of  the  Sun," 
presumably  in  Ceylon;  Bacon's  "New  Atlantis,"  possibly  corre- 
sponding to  Australia;  "Utopia,"  under  the  tropics  in  South 
America;  Fenelon's  "Republique  de  Salente";  Cabet's  "Icaria"; 
Howell's  "Altruria" ;  not  to  mention  others.  Harrington's  Brit- 
ish "Oceana,"  Bellamy's  "Looking  Backward"  to  Boston,  Morris's 


8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

"News  from  Nowhere,"  whose  scene  is  in  London,  are  the  few 
which  dare  to  set  up  their  Utopias  in  their  native  land. 

But  there  may  be  another  classification  of  Utopian  literature 
which  we  shall  follow:  one  according  to  which  the  imaginative 
element  is  engaged  preeminently,  either  in  the  political  or  the 
social  realm.  That  is,  the  Utopia  takes  the  color  either  of  a 
political  discussion,  aiming  to  set  up  an  ideal  government,  or  its 
main  color  comes  from  depicting  the  social  condition  consequent 
upon  some  changes,  especially  in  the  economic  or  family  life. 
The  element  of  fiction  proper  is  confined  chiefly  to  the  second 
class.  The  former  class  approaches  more  nearly  to  the  confines 
of  what  we  may  call  the  publicist  function,  but  differs  in  having 
more  or  less  the  romantic  element,  especially  the  dramatic 
setting  of  the  literary  symposium. 

I.  In  this  philosophical  or  political  category  we  should  rightly 
classify  Plato's  "Republic,"  though  it  has  elements  of  the  social 
Utopia,  which  are  the  least  prominent,  and  yet  the  ones  by 
which  it  is  best  known  and  judged.  Leaving  it,  therefore,  for 
later  discussion,  next  after  Plato  comes  Cicero's  "De  Republica," 
usually  called  "The  Commonwealth."  It  is  based  on  Plato,  and 
yet  possesses  greater  political  wisdom,  as  befitting  a  Roman.  He 
sets  up  a  state,  not  in  philosophical  theory  only,  as  Plato  did, 
but  by  a  severe  historical  study  of  Roman  institutions.  His 
speculation  is  a  search,  in  his  own  language,  for  a  "just  distri- 
bution'" (this  is  the  note  of  the  world's  Utopian  cry),  and  a 
"subordination"  (not  so  frequent  a  demand)  of  rights,  offices 
and  prerogatives,  so  as  to  give  "sufficient  domination  to  the 
chiefs,  sufficient  authority  to  the  senate,  and  sufficient  liberty  to 
the  people."  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  in  this  blending  of 
the  royal,  aristocratic,  and  popular  elements  Cicero  has  almost 
outlined  in  prophecy  the  essential  features  of  the  British  con- 
stitution of  our  day. 

We  come  out  of  the  publicist  realm  of  Cicero's  speculations 
when  we  take  up  Augustine's  "De  Civitate  Dei,"  which  is  often 
spoken  of  as  a  philosophical  and  religious  Utopia,  why,  we 
cannot  see,  except  for  its  name;  and  yet  it  is  interesting  as  the 
first  great  work  which  dared  to  break  that  ideal  or  idol  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  by  placing  alongside  of  it  the  great  Christian 
ideal  of  a  heavenly  city.  The  decay  and  fall  of  Rome  before 
Alaric  had  shaken  the  world  as  we  can  hardly  imagine,  and  all 
the  fabric  of  society  seemed  disintegrated.  Even  Christians 


SOCIALISM  9 

thought  that  the  destruction  of  Rome  meant  the  prelude  to  the 
end  of  the  world.  A  widspread  attempt  was  made  to  attribute 
this  calamity  to  the  Christian  religion.  Augustine's  great  book 
is  in  part  a  maintenance  of  the  thesis  that  the  destruction  of 
the  Roman  Empire  is  due  not  to  the  rise  of  Christianity,  but  to 
the  corruption  of  paganism.  The  old  social  system  is  passing, 
but  in  its  place  he  seems  to  see  a  new  order  arising,  as  over  the 
ruins  hovers  the  splendid  vision  of  the  City  of  God,  coming 
down  out  of  Heaven.  And  yet  his  eyes  are  set,  not  so  much 
forward  in  a  politico-social  speculation  (he  has  no  vision  as  yet 
of  even  the  Holy  Roman  Empire)  as  backward  over  history  as 
he  traces  from  the  first  a  city  of  God,  a  community  of  God's 
people,  living  alongside  the  kingdoms  of  this  world,  and  their 
glory,  and  as  he  traces  their  antagonism  from  the  fall  of  the 
angels  to  the  last  judgment.  The  distinctive  place  of  Augustine 
in  social  literature  is  his  conception  of  the  spiritual  realm,  and 
the  slow-moving  but  triumphant  providence  of  God  as  developing 
in,  with,  alongside  of,  and  despite  the  great  visible  world  king- 
doms of  men;  a  conception  quite  in  accord  with  sanest  Christian 
ideals  of  men  today,  and  with  the  historic  method  of  interpre- 
tation. 

But  it  is  very  interesting  (going  on  to  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury) to  take  up  a  fascinating  book  which  Dean  Church  has 
recently  translated,  Dante's  "De  Monarchia."  It  is  strictly  in 
its  form  a  governmental  treatise,  but  it  has  for  its  theme  an  idea 
which,  as  intimated  before,  was  for  centuries  the  world's  Utopian 
dream,  and  which  history  has  proved  to  be  Utopian,  the  concep- 
tion of  a  holy  world-wide  Roman  empire,  which  should  bring 
universal  peace  and  prosperity.  The  conflict  of  Christian  cen- 
turies, between  church  and  state,  emperor  and  pope,  was  largely 
a  discussion  as  between  two  holies  as  to  relative  place.  In  the 
awful  chaos  of  his  time,  political  and  social,  Dante,  devout 
Catholic  as  he  was,  dreams  again  of  a  revived  Roman  empire, 
subordinating  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  a  universal  mon- 
archy with  a  single  authority,  unselfish,  inflexible,  which  could 
make  all  smaller  tyrannies  to  cease,  and  enable  every  man  to 
live  in  peace  and  liberty  so  long  as  he  lived  in  justice.  Such  a 
power  was  Rome,  and  such  a  power  shall  become  Christendom, 
longs  Dante,  under  a  revived  Roman  empire,  despite  the  dis- 
couraging experiences  by  which  he  was  surrounded.  Believing 
that  imperial  Roman  power  divine  and  eternal,  he  idealizes  a 


io  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON, 

state  which  he  dreams  will  yet  set  up  peace  and  justice  in  the 
earth.  He  elaborately  argues  the  divinity  of  the  old  Roman 
state  as  religiously  as  he  would  that  of  the  Old  Testament 
theocracy.  He  finds  divine  potents  and  miracles  and  sanctions  in 
secular  Roman  history,  and  proves  to  his  own  satisfaction  that 
its  rehabilitation  is  necessary  to  the  redemption  of  the  world. 
The  "De  Monarchia"  of  Dante  shows  how  passionately  he  reverts 
to  an  idea  which  Augustine  had  done  so  much  to  overthrow 
centuries  before.  It  is  interesting  not  only  for  itself,  and  crys- 
talizes  better  than  anything  we  can  read  the  visions  which  for 
ages  ruled  man's  imaginations ;  but  it  also  explains  the  passion- 
ate political  strains  which  form  so  deep  an  undertone  in  his 
"Commedia,"  and  which  have  led  many  commentators  of  Dante 
to  consider  it  a  Ghibelline  poem,  insinuating  what  it  was  dan- 
gerous to  announce,  and  breathing  into  our  own  times  patriotic 
impulses  to  Pope-ridden  Italy. 

Still  considering  the  political  Utopias,  we  come  down  to  select 
one  more:  the  "Oceana"  of  Harrington,  written  and  published 
in  the  troublous  times  of  Charles  and  Cromwell.  James  Har- 
rington, of  noble  family,  wide  learning,  extensive  travel,  and  a 
courtier  of  Charles  I.,  after  the  king's  death,  without  actively 
espousing  the  cause  of  Cromwell,  was  yet  inclined  to  the  idea 
of  a  commonwealth.  He  wrote  his  book,  which  was  an  earnest 
effort  to  induce  Cromwell  to  introduce  certain  radical  reforms. 
The  book  was  seized  by  Cromwell,  but  subsequently  restored, 
and  dedicated  to  the  lord  protector.  On  the  restoration,  Har- 
rington was  imprisoned  and  was  released  only  after  he  had 
become  shattered  in  mind  and  body.  The  "Oceana"  belongs  in 
the  class  with  Hobbe's  "Leviathan"  and  the  writings  of  Filmer 
and  Locke,  but  it  is  distinguished  by  its  literary  form  and  its 
fiction  of  an  actual  program  to  set  up  his  Utopia.  "Oceana"  is 
England,  "Marpesia,"  Scotland,  and  "Panopaea,"  Ireland.  He 
has  fictitious  names  for  London,  St.  James,  and  the  kings  of 
England.  Cromwell  is  the  Lord  Archon,  and  is  named  "Ol- 
phaeus  Megaletor."  A  great  council  under  the  Archon's 
auspices  is  called,  committees  are  appointed  to  consider  every 
government  from  Israel  to  Venice,  and  orations  and  public 
disputations  issue  out  of  this  wide  survey,  in  a  reconstruction  of 
England's  commonwealth.  His  great  idea  is  that  the  troubles  of 
his  time  and  all  time  are  due  to  change  in  the  balance  of 
property.  "Empire  follows  the  balance  of  property"  is  a  phrase 


SOCIALISM  ii 

of  his  which  has  become  somewhat  notable.  He  shows  his 
commonwealth  in  action  with  the  most  elaborate  safeguards  and 
calculations  of  property  adjustment,  to  prevent  shiftings  of  that 
balance.  This  he  does  by  agrarian  laws,  by  limiting  the  power 
of  accumulation  to  a  certain  income,  and  by  regulating  inherit- 
ances. He  sets  up  in  imagination  a  popular  government  in  which 
offices  are  filled  by  men  chosen  by  ballot,  to  hold  office  for  a 
limited  period.  The  idea  of  a  ballot  for  popular  municipal  and 
parliamentary  elections  does  not  seem  Utopian  to  us,  though  it 
is  only  within  fifty  years  that  the  written  or  printed  ballot  has 
been  used  in  English  parliamentary  elections — a  custom  old  as 
Rome  in  limited  usage,  and  often  adopted  in  modern  times  for 
other  purposes. 

It  would  be  going  beyond  the  limited  range  of  our  subject 
to  enter  into  the  French  and  German  speculative  social  litera- 
ture. The  political  elements  in  them,  Utopian  in  their  democracy 
then,  have  now  been  quite  fully  established.  Economically,  they 
are  socialistic  in  varied  ranges  from  communism  to  anarchy, 
from  philansteries  to  cooperative  commonwealths.  The  imagi- 
native literary  element,  however,  does  not  generally  prevail, 
except  in  some  of  Rousseau's  writings,  in  Mably's  poem,  "The 
Basiliade,"  and  in  Cabet's  "Icaria."  Fourier's  politico-social 
ideas,  though  not  taking  a  distinctively  literary  form,  yet  sug- 
gested in  his  philansteries  a  concrete  program  of  social  organi- 
zation which  did  much  to  stimulate  communistic  societies  in 
Europe  and  America.  The  famous  Brook  Farm  experiment, 
though  originally  from  an  indigenous  impulse,  was  dominated 
in  its  later  development  by  the  teaching  of  Fourier. 

II.  Let  us  pass  on  to  the  second  class  of  Utopias,  those 
which  deal  more  closely  with  social  programs,  and  have  the  more 
distinctly  literary  form.  By  far  the  largest  class  of  Utopian 
literature  has  taken  the  form  of  imaginary  social  common- 
wealths with  some  fiction  of  actual  adventure  to  give  them  cur- 
rency. The  reasons  for  this  method  may  be  either  its  stimulus 
to  the  imagination  in  the  absence  of  scientific  and  historic  data 
which  are  now  available,  or  it  was  resorted  to  for  the  sake  of 
protection  to  the  writers  in  putting  forth  critical  views  upon 
existing  society.  The  most  famous  books  of  this  class  are 
Plato's  "Republic,"  300  B.C.;  More's  "Utopia,"  1517;  Campa- 
nella's  "City  of  the  Sun,"  and  Bacon's  "New  Atlantis,"  early  in 
the  seventeenth  century.  Besides  we  may  mention  "L'Evangel 


12  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Eternal,"  by  Abbe  Joachim,  early  in  the  thirteenth  century— a 
Utopian  dream  about  the  reign  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Fenelon 
wrote  two  Utopias :  "Betigue"— an  Arcadian  dream  of  a  pastoral 
people  without  vices— and  "Republique  de  Salente,"  a  picture  of 
a  people  with  no  industry  but  agriculture,  attaining  a  high  degree 
of  perfection  and  happiness.  In  it  war  is  depicted  as  the  source 
of  all  misery— a  bold  position  in  the  age  of  Louis  XIV.  There 
is  a  political  romance  by  John  Barclay  (early  in  the  seventeenth 
century),  entitled  "Argenis,"  very  famous  in  its  day,  and  greatly 
admired  among  others  by  Disraeli  and  Coleridge,  and  widely 
translated.  Then  there  is  in  more  modern  times  the  story  of  the 
poet  Morris,  "News  from  Nowhere,"  Howell's  "Altruria,"  and 
Bellamy's  "Looking  Backward"  and  "Equality,"  not  to  mention 
others.  Most  of  them  deal  positively  in  the  construction  of  an 
ideal  social  state,  with  implications  everywhere  of  criticism  on 
existing  institutions. 

We  might  also  include  in  this  list  imaginative  works  which 
use  the  opposite  and  offensive  method  of  elongating  the  vices 
and  foibles  of  present  society  in  an  unideal  world :  such  method 
of  parody  as  Swift  uses  in  "Gulliver's  Travels."  Another  book 
of  the  same  order,  but  little  known,  is  Joseph  Hall's  (1607) 
"Mundus  Alter  et  Idem,"  a  pseudo-ideal  world  discovered  by  a 
traveler,  and  divided  into  regions  answering  to  man's  chief 
weaknesses  and  vices.  He  gives  a  map  of  Crapulia,  Latronia, 
Moronia,  etc. — and  with  an  irony  which  seems  a  very  critique 
of  Utopias,  he  outlines  on  the  edge  of  his  map  a  terra  sancta 
ignota  adhuc.  There  is  also  a  class  of  writings  like  Montes- 
quieu's "Lettres  Persannes,"  in  which,  in  gentle  irony,  it  is 
shown  how  a  stranger  from  Persia  or  India  would  regard  man- 
ners and  morals  in  England  or  France.  This  is  Howell's  method 
in  his  "Traveller  from  Altruria." 

The  notes  in  this  literary  method  in  the  past  seem  little 
varied  and  tame  oftentimes  to  the  fiction-surfeited  mind  of  our 
day.  The  most  frequent  literary  form  is  that  of  the  symposium, 
strictly  speaking,  as  in  Plato's  "Republic,"  Cicero's  "Common- 
wealth," Harrington's  "Oceana."  In  garden  or  grove  or  house, 
or  on  the  tribune,  friends  meet  and  declaim  or  talk.  The  liter- 
ary quality  to  be  maintained  in  these  symposia  is  simply  the 
consistency  in  type  of  the  talkers.  The  central  figure,  Plato's 
Socrates,  Cicero's  Scipio,  Harrington's  Lord  Archon,  furnish 
the  main  arguments,  and  the  others  are  his  foils.  The  strength 


SOCIALISM  13 

of  such  a  book  depends  upon  the  fairness  and  force  of  the 
arguments  the  author  puts  into  the  mouth  of  his  objectors. 
Plato  and  More  dare  to  have  their  critics  say  something  strong; 
Julian  West,  in  the  latest  product  of  Mr.  Bellamy,  gapes  and 
swallows  as  Gospel  everything  Dr.  Leete  says.  Even  when 
this  symposium  method  does  not  occupy  the  whole  literary 
field,  it  is  still  retained  in  part  as  the  setting  of  the  dream  or 
experience.  Look  at  the  literary  setting  of  some  of  the  Utopias. 
Sir  Thomas  More,  writing  in  1515,  soon  after  Columbus  and 
Vespucci,  so  that  men's  minds  were  stirred  by  discovery  and 
adventure,  tells  us  how  he  was  on  ambassadorial  business  for 
Henry  VIII  in  Flanders,  when  he  met  one  day  a  certain  Peter 
Giles,  an  honorable  man  of  learning.  As  they  were  returning 
from  church,  on  a  time,  he  saw  his  friend  talking  with  a 
stranger,  who  proved  to  be  one  Raphael  Hythloday,  a  Portuguese 
scholar  and  adventurer,  who  was  so  anxious  to  see  the  world 
that  he  had  divided  his  estate  among  his  brothers,  and  had 
gone  on  three  voyages  with  Vespucci.  On  the  last  voyage  he 
begged  to  be  left  behind,  and  setting  out  with  five  Castellians 
inland  he  saw  some  wonderful  states  and  peoples — especially  one 
Utopia.  Struck  by  his  knowledge  and  acuteness,  More  and  Giles 
expressed  astonishment  that  he  did  not  enter,  after  such  valu- 
able experiences,  upon  the  service  of  some  European  state.  This 
opened  the  way  for  a  discussion  of  the  poverty  and  crime,  the 
wasteful  wars  and  social  condition  generally  of  Europe — and  the 
consequent  story  of  Utopia  was  told  by  way  of  contrast. 

The  same  literary  method  is  used  by  Campanella  about  a 
century  later.  Campanella  was  a  Dominican  monk  born  in  Cala- 
bria, who  suffered  for  his  ardor  in  the  cause  of  science.  He 
was  a  contemporary  of  Lord  Bacon  and  shared  his  philosophy 
and  method.  His  scientific  and  philosophical  publications  were 
coincident  with  an  Italian  conspiracy  in  Calabria  to  throw  off 
the  Spanish  yoke.  He  was  seized  and  sent  to  Naples  as  a 
political  suspect.  He  was  imprisoned  twenty-seven  years,  during 
which  time  he  wrote  his  "City  of  the  Sun."  It  is  a  dialogue 
between  a  grandmaster  of  the  Hospital  Knights  and  a  Genoese 
sea  captain,  who  had  seen  and  describes  the  city  he  had  discov- 
ered. This  book  is  interesting  and  curious.  It  is  a  vast  scheme 
idealizing  a  state  built  on  a  hierarchy  of  learning.  Metaphysic 
("Hof")  is  its  personified  prince,  and  Power  ("Pon"),  Wisdom 
("Sin"),  and  Love  ("Mor")  are  a  triumvirate  of  counselors. 


14  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

These  coincide  with  his  ideas  of  the  Trinity.  Power,  Wisdom, 
and  Love,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  He  describes  a  city 
whose  seven  concentric  walls  are  pictured  with  object  lessons 
in  learning.  Its  pantheistic  cultus  is  a  dream  which  might  pre- 
figure Comte's  "Religion  of  Humanity."  The  worth  of  the  book 
does  not  warrant  a  detailed  discussion.  Campanella  tries  to 
combine  some  of  Plato's  philosophy  and  social  ideas  with  the 
scientific  elements  more  fully  developed  in  Bacon's  "New 
Atlantis,"  to  which  we  now  turn. 

Lord  Bacon's  "New  Atlantis"  is  a  simple  narrative  of  a 
ship's  company  which  sailed  from  Peru  for  China.  Encounter- 
ing storms,  provisions  exhausted,  at  last  they  discovered  an 
island  or  continent  in  the  then  unknown  Southern  Sea.  They 
entered  a  harbor  and  beheld  a  fair  city.  They  were  met  by 
officials  gorgeously  apparelled,  who  bade  them  depart,  by  a 
proclamation  written  in  Greek  and  Hebrew  and  Latin  and 
Spanish.  The  document  was  sealed  with  a  cross.  Discovering 
by  this  sign  that  the  sailors  were  Christians  too,  they  were 
allowed  to  land.  They  were  taken  to  the  Strangers'  House, 
so-called,  and  superbly  entertained.  Soon  the  governor  called, 
offered  further  hospitalities,  and  answered  their  questions  about 
the  state.  It  seems  that  about  twenty  years  after  the  death  of 
Christ  a  wonderful  light  was  seen  at  sea,  a  pillar  of  fire  sur- 
mounted by  a  resplendent  cross.  Upon  approaching  the  wonder, 
it  exploded  with  a  great  coruscation,  and  nothing  was  left  but  a 
small  ark,  which  opened  of  itself,  and  disclosed  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  with  a  letter  from  St.  Bartholomew  saying 
that  he  had  been  instructed  by  an  angel  to  cast  this  ark  into 
the  sea  for  the  salvation  of  some  unknown  realm.  The  narra- 
tive goes  on,  in  conversations  and  in  walks  about  the  city,  to 
disclose  its  history  and  wonders  in  government  and  science. 
Commerce  is  forbidden  to  the  people  with  any  state  not  under 
their  own  crown  but  through  the  fiction  of  a  sacred  order 
called  "Solomon's  House,"  and  under  its  auspices,  every  twelve 
years  two  ships  with  three  Solomonian  brethren  in  each  are 
sent  out  to  different  realms  to  gather  knowledge  of  affairs, 
especially  of  science,  arts,  manufactures,  and  inventions.  These 
he  beautifully  calls  "Merchants  of  Light."  The  results  of  these 
discoveries  are  seen  in  the  wonderful  museums  and  laboratories 
he  describes,  and  in  the  social  effects  upon  this  land  of  Barsa- 
lem,  of  this  scientific  learning.  The  book,  in  other  words,  is  a 


SOCIALISM  15 

scientific  speculation  by  the  great  author  of  the  "Novum  Or- 
ganon" — a  sort  of  bold  anticipation  of  the  wonders  of  modern 
science,  which  Bellamy  finds  so  helpful  in  his  Utopia  full  of 
quaint  conceits,  and  letting  the  imagination  revel  in  the  possi- 
bilities of  his  inductive  method.  He  can  have  towers  three 
miles  high,  and  caverns  three  miles  deep.  He  has  artificial 
wells  and  water  of  Paradise.  He  has  a  wonderful  biological 
laboratory  for  experiments  on  plants  and  animals.  He  can 
raise  plants  by  mixture  of  earth  without  seeds ;  can  continue  life, 
even  if  some  vital  parts  are  gone.  He  can  magnify  and  dimin- 
ish bodies.  He  has  furnaces  which  can  imitate  not  only  the 
sun's  heat,  but  that  of  the  stars.  He  can  make  artificial  rain- 
bows, and  says  "we  have  some  perpetual  motions."  In  fact,  the 
book  is  a  veritable  Baron  Munchausen  of  science.  And  yet  in 
it  all  he  has  prognostications  of  many  things  which  modern 
biology  and  chemistry  and  mechanics  have  actually  achieved. 
He  anticipates  the  discovery  of  meat  extracts.  He  prefigures 
the  microscope.  A  crude  compound  microscope  was  invented  in 
Holland  a  few  years  before.  He  may  have  known  of  it,  but 
we  have  no  data  to  verify  the  supposition.  He  suggests  some- 
thing like  the  audophone  and  telephone,  submarine  boats  are 
faintly  in  his  imagination,  and  "some  degrees  of  flying  in  the 
air,"  as  he  modestly  puts  it ;  and  there  is  something  like  a 
weather  bureau  in  full  blast.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the 
scientific  "New  Atlantis"  is  one  of  the  most  ostensibly  religious 
books  in  Utopian  literature. 

Leaving  the  literary  setting  of  these  books,  Jet  us  now  go 
back  to  consider  and  condense  as  far  as  possible  the  more 
notable  political  and  social  positions  of  the  two  most  famous 
Utopias,  those  of  Plato  and  More. 

Plato  may  be  regarded  as  the  pioneer  in  this  class  of  writing 
— influencing  more  or  less  directly  nearly  every  subsequent 
utopist.  His  search  in  the  "Republic"  is  for  ideal  justice, 
outlined  by  the  words  of  Socrates  in  the  symposium,  but  con- 
fronted by  the  conservatism  of  the  aged  Cephalus,  by  Thrasy- 
machus,  a  type  of  the  sophist,  by  Polemarchus,  the  practical 
man  of  social  traditions,  by  Glaucon,  the  impetuous  youth  and 
man  of  pleasure,  and  by  Adeimantus,  the  representative  of  com- 
mon sense.  Through  the  labyrinth  of  the  Socratic  method  in 
such  a  dialogue  it  is  hard  to  get  at  his  meaning.  It  seems  to 
have  been  based  upon  the  Greek  idea  of  individual  insubordina- 


16  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

tion  to  the  state,  and  yet  equally  pronounced  is  the  more  modern 
idea  that  you  must  have  an  ideal  man  to  make  an  ideal  state. 
All  that  he  says  about  the  state  is  commingled  with  a  discussion 
of  similar  qualities  and  regulations  in  the  commonwealth  of  a 
man's  own  soul.  He  looks  upon  reason,  courage,  and  temper- 
ance as  the  chief  desiderata  in  a  man,  corresponding  to  his 
mind,  his  feelings,  and  his  will.  Their  balance  make  the  ideal 
man.  The  state  should,  therefore,  have  three  classes  corre- 
sponding: the  rulers  or  guardians  (the  reason),  the  soldiers 
with  preponderance  of  courage,  the  workingmen  artificers  and 
farmers,  whose  virtue  is  temperance,  though  he  does  not  de- 
velop this  idea.  It  seems  hard  to  discover  in  his  argument, 
which  he  makes  the  starting  point  or  norm  for  the  other:  the 
state  or  the  individual  but  this  is  clear,  that  the  subordination 
of  all  to  the  public  good  is  vital  and  yet  that  each  acquires 
justice  for  himself,  and  contributes  it  to  the  state  by  each 
doing  his  own  business  well,  and  submitting  to  what  the  general 
good  requires.  This  certainly  is  not  very  Utopian,  and  is  quite 
modern,  and  as  far  as  I  have  read  is  not  much  dwelt  upon  by 
commentators  of  Plato.  But  the  theme  which  is  most  elaborately 
discussed  in  the  "Republic"  is  this:  that  it  is  not  so  much  the 
happiness  of  the  citizens  as  the  well-being  of  the  state  that  is 
to  be  sought — quite  in  contrast  with  modern  materialistic 
Utopias  in  which  individual  happiness  and  comfort  is  the  chief 
ingredient. 

Then  Plato  goes  on  to  discuss  the  education  best  fitted  to 
make  these  classes  do  best  their  own  business.  It  is  a  curious 
thing  to  modern  ideas  that  he  leaves  out  entirely,  in  his  discus- 
sion, the  third  great  class,  the  people,  with  whom  modern 
Utopias  are  chiefly  concerned,  and  confines  all  he  says  to  the 
education  of  the  guardians  and  soldiers ;  and  it  is  not  at  all 
clear  whether  what  he  says  is  even  meant  for  both,  but  only 
for  one  of  these  upper  classes.  Nothing  gives  a  clearer  idea 
than  this  neglect  of  the  common  people  in  his  Utopia  of  the 
difference  between  a  Greek  and  a  modern  democracy.  His 
educational  scheme  includes,  first  for  all,  up  to  the  age  of 
twenty,  music  (in  which  he  apparently  includes  religion  and 
literature),  and  gymnastics.  It  is  interesting  that  it  is  the 
intellectual  and  moral  regimen  of  gymnastics  that  he  has  chiefly 
in  mind.  After  the  age  of  twenty  begins  a  more  serious  educa- 
tion of  the  soul,  designed  chiefly  for  the  more  promising  youth, 


SOCIALISM  17 

including  a  more  comprehensive  study  of  the  arts  and  sciences. 
At  thirty,  still  further  selected  spirits  are  chosen  from  them, 
who  go  out  into  practical  life  to  command  armies,  and  gain 
experience  of  affairs.  At  fifty  they  can  return  to  a  further  life 
of  philosophy,  or  take  their  places  among  the  rulers  and  trainers 
of  others.  A  third  step  of  training  is  hinted  at  in  Plato's 
famous  argument  for  immortality  in  the  eternal  development 
of  the  soul  as  suggested  by  the  vision  of  Er,  near  the  close  of 
the  "Republic."  This  argument  is  made  in  connection  with  a 
remark  that  indicates  his  view  that  his  scheme  was  almost 
impracticable  on  earth,  and  needed  the  longer  period  of  eternity 
to  develop  it.  It  is  curious  to  note  that  the  education  he  pre- 
scribes for  his  selected  guardians  is  primarily  geometry — also 
astronomy  and  dialectics  as  subsidiary  to  a  search  for  the  good. 
Plato  does  not  propose  for  his  future  legislators  any  study  of 
finance  or  law  or  military  tactics.  Nothing  appears  more  incon- 
gruous to  our  modern  notions;  and  yet  as  a  counterpoise  to  the 
extreme  view  of  "practical  politics,"  and  the  habitual  sneer  at 
the  "literary  fellows,"  Plato's  ideal  has  had  its  uses,  and  is 
beginning  to  be  recognized  in  its  appropriate  balance  in  our  day. 
This  idea  of  a  large,  comprehensive  public  education  for  citizen 
careers  is  one  that  runs  through  the  other  Utopias ;  Campa- 
nella  and  Bacon,  for  example,  but  with  a  more  democratic 
inclusiveness. 

It  is  other  elements,  however,  in  the  training  of  these  guardi- 
ans which  have  become  most  famous.  First,  there  is  absolute 
equality  of  the  sexes,  identical  education  and  identical  careers. 
No  idea  could  possibly  be  more  un-Greek  than  this.  He  antici- 
pates and  goes  far  beyond  the  most  ultra-modern  notions:  for 
the  women  are  to  bear  with  men  the  burdens  of  war  and  state. 
His  argument  is  that  the  sex  difference  is  not  a  difference  of 
natures,  and  that  there  is  more  difference  between  different  men 
and  women  than  between  man  and  woman.  Hence  natures  being 
the  same,  education  should  be  the  same,  and  therefore  occupa- 
tions should  be  the  same.  He  never  flinches  in  this  third 
conclusion,  even  as  to  war. 

This  he  can  do  in  his  scheme  without  detriment  to  the 
home,  for  he  has  no  home  in  his  ideal  state,  for  the  guardians. 
A  regulated  promiscuity  and  a  system  of  public  nursing  and 
education  for  children  which  rigorously  obliterates  identification 
of  children  in  parentage  is  part  of  his  scheme.  I  say  regulated 


i8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON  t 

promiscuity — for  curiously,  from  our  point  of  view,  Plato  sets 
up  his  scheme  partly  to  prevent  certain  abuses  of  freedom,  as  he 
thinks.  To  avoid  this,  holy  marriage  festivals  are  instituted, 
and  he  adds,  "their  holiness  will  be  in  proportion  to  their  use- 
fulness." To  this  end  the  guardians  see  to  it  that  only  the 
good  and  strong  of  either  sex  marry  with  corresponding  quali- 
ties, as  often  as  possible,  and  the  bad  with  the  bad  less  fre- 
quently ;  the  children  of  the  good  being  saved,  the  other  offspring 
killed.  To  prevent  popular  irritation  over  the  differentiation, 
the  brides  and  grooms  at  the  festival  are  ostensibly  assigned  by 
lot,  but  really  by  design — a  politic  lie  which  Plato  enjoys  to 
consider.  The  man  must  be  twenty-five  to  fifty  years  of  age; 
the  woman  from  twenty  to  forty.  Any  one  above  or  below 
these  ages  who  takes  part  in  the  hymeneal  festival  is  guilty  of 
impiety — also  any  one  who  forms  a  marriage  relation  at  other 
times.  After  fifty  and  forty,  he  allows  promiscuity  of  relation- 
ship. His  idea  in  mating  his  couples  is  based  upon  the  care  we 
show  in  breeding  cattle :  shall  we  do  less  for  the  safety  of 
society,  in  heredity?  he  argues.  This  is  his  paramount  con- 
sideration, and  every  sentiment  of  love  and  home  goes  down 
before  it.  Of  this  scheme  Plato  says  he  has  no  doubt  of  its 
expediency,  but  he  has  of  its  possibility.  This  feature  of  Plato 
is  to  us  the  most  abhorrent  of  all  his  ideas;  but  one  thing  must 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  contrary  to  the  general  idea  about  it, 
Plato  thinks  he  is  aiming  not  at  unbridled  lust,  but  at  an  almost 
impossible  strictness,  and  at  mechanical  regulation — though  in 
face  of  the  suppression  of  the  deepest  sentiments. 

This  is  Plato's  solvent  of  the  social  evil  and  the  bane  of 
heredity;  utterly  alien  in  method  from  Christian  love,  humanity, 
and  hope.  And  yet  this  phase  of  evil  and  the  taint  of  depraved 
heritage,  and  the  overpopulation  of  the  lower  orders,  are  still 
with  us,  the  Gordian  knot  of  social  reform. 

It  is  interesting  to  see  that  Mr.  Bellamy  has  accepted  essen- 
tially Plato's  idea  of  identity  of  sexes  in  nature  and  occupation; 
and  he  is  going  to  meet  the  whole  Malthusian  argument  by 
woman's  increasing  physical  power  through  gymnastics  to  resist 
male  approach,  and  by  her  economic  independence  in  public 
careers. 

Another  element  in  the  ideal  republic  much  dwelt  upon, 
but  yet  very  slightly  emphasized  by  Plato,  is  community  of 
goods  and  absence  of  money.  "The  diviner  metal  is  within 


SOCIALISM  19 

them,  and  they  have  therefore  no  need  of  that  earthly  dross," 
he  says.  When  you  come  to  look  for  this  provision  in  the  end 
of  the  third  book  of  the  "Republic,"  you  find  about  a  page  only 
given  to  it ;  and  the  communism  of  property,  of  which  so  much 
has  been  said,  is  little  more  than  an  abundant  but  simple  com- 
mon provision  for  the  rulers  and  soldiery — a  sort  of  wage 
given  by  the  citizens  in  general,  so  that  the  rulers  could  perform 
governmental  functions  without  distraction  of  fear  or  favor. 

This  economic  communism,  in  some  form,  and  the  bane  of 
money  and  individual  property,  is  the  one  persistent  idea  in 
nearly  all  Utopias — Sir  Thomas  More  is  the  great  exponent  of 
it — and  it  is  the  note  of  all  modern  nationalism  and  collectiv- 
ism ;  but  the  ground  for  it  utterly  shifted  since  Plato's  day. 
Now  it  is  advanced  entirely  in  the  supposed  interest  of  the 
poor;  it  is  presented  as  an  economic  factor  of  social  justice. 
But  with  Plato  it  was  an  entirely  different  matter;  it  was  in 
the  interest,  as  he  supposed,  of  disinterested  patriotism  and 
undisturbed  devotion  to  the  state  on  the  part  of  his  upper  classes 
— very  much  the  argument  for  the  monastic  life  of  the  clergy 
later  on.  This  idea  of  sharing  of  possessions,  for  the  justice 
of  it,  to  the  poor  is  not  in  Plato's  mind  at  all,  nor  is  this  the 
great  reason  with  Sir  Thomas  More;  but  it  is  the  good  of  the 
state.  And  Plato's  argument  for  community  of  goods  as  well  as 
of  wives  (within  certain  limits)  for  the  guardian  classes,  and 
only  for  them,  is  simply  this,  that  without  care  for  personal 
property,  and  for  one's  own  children,  they  might  escape  thereby 
the  distractions  of  avarice  or  of  family  caste,  and  the  sweet 
family  affections  which  would  otherwise  share  their  interest  in 
civic  justice,  courage,  and  impartiality:  an  utter  mistake,  we 
may  say;  yet  socially  there  is  some  ground  for  it.  Plato's 
communism  is  nothing  like  modern  socialism. 

It  remains  only  to  say  that  Plato  does  not  say  how  or 
when  he  is  going  to  set  up  his  state,  except  in  two  passages. 
First,  he  says  in  answer  to  when :  "Not  until  kings  are  philoso- 
phers or  philosophers  kings."  And  again  when  asked  how,  if 
his  guardians  have  set  up  their  scheme,  they  would  go  to  work 
on  existing  institutions,  he  says  he  would  begin  by  sending  out 
of  the  city  into  the  country  all  over  ten  years  of  age,  and 
begin  his  education  on  those  that  were  left.  I  should  like  to 
see  the  twinkle  in  Plato's  eye  if  he  could  read  some  modern 
literature  on  this  point. 


20  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Despite  these  Utopian  elements — and  no  one  knew  that  they 
were  so,  better  than  Plato  himself,  as  could  be  abundantly 
shown — despite  some  ideas  and  ideals  utterly  revolting  to  Chris- 
tian principles,  Plato  ideally  has  held  up  to  the  world  some 
views  which  are  modern,  and  more  than  modern,  if  I  may  so 
speak.  His  ideal  of  a  lifelong  education,  extended  to  both  sexes, 
based  on  their  equality,  his  blending  of  philosophy  and  ethics 
with  politics,  his  insistence  on  a  right  individual  to  make  a 
right  state,  his  search  for  the  good,  or,  as  we  should  call  it, 
religion,  as  a  basis  of  political  justice,  his  finding  of  wealth 
in  weal,  a  note  now  often  heard  since  Ruskin — all  these  and 
more  are  the  abiding  elements  in  a  Utopia,  many  of  whose 
paradoxes  are  still  ours,  and  many  of  whose  problems  we  are 
yet  facing. 

The  "Utopia"  of  Sir  Thomas  More  is  next  in  interest  and 
importance  to  that  of  Plato's  "Republic."  It  is  by  far  the 
most  charming  of  all  the  Utopias  from  a  literary  point  of  view, 
and,  despite  some  of  its  suggestions,  has  permanent  social  value. 
It  has  great  modern  interest  moreover,  for  it  was  called  out  by 
an  economic  condition  somewhat  resembling  our  own.  The 
breaking  up  of  the  feudal  system  detached  men  from  the  soil, 
and  from  a  dependence  of  serfdom,  which  yet  gave  measurably 
the  necessities  of  life.  Moreover,  the  change  of  land  tenures, 
the  increase  of  individual  over  feudal  proprietorships,  the  in- 
closing of  commons,  and  the  growing  preponderance  of  manu- 
facture over  agriculture  resulted  in  widespread  change  of  em- 
ployment, turning  much  tilled  land  into  pasturage,  and  so 
dispensing  with  many  laborers.  These  facts,  in  that  period, 
resulted  in  a  social  upheaval  and  displacement  quite  resembling 
the  industrial  revolution  in  our  day,  coming  from  machinery 
and  from  modern  competitive  capitalism.  Like  the  later  move- 
ment, it  was  doubtless  a  step  in  progress,  but  resulted  incident- 
ally in  great  hardship  for  individuals,  threw  hosts  of  men  into 
the  field,  and  resulted  in  a  great  era  of  crime.  The  state  was 
not  ready  then,  with  modern  charities  and  reformatory  methods 
to  meet  it;  the  English  poor  laws  were  not  yet  in  force,  and 
the  day  of  repression  by  capital  punishment  for  nearly  all 
offenses  was  in  full  vigor. 

The  "Utopia"  was  written  primarily  to  show  the  enormity  of 
the  English  criminal  law,  and  its  inexpediency,  and  to  disclose 
in  parable  the  economic  injustice  and  folly  of  punishing  ruth- 


SOCIALISM  21 

lessly  enforced  idleness  and  crime  by  death,  when  economic 
conditions  and  policy  fostered  both.  On  the  side  of  the  gov- 
ernments, Sir  Thomas  More  saw  the  economic  burdens  of  war 
and  the  corruptions  of  courts,  and  on  the  side  of  social  life  he 
saw  the  greed  of  wealth,  the  diplay  of  luxury,  and  the  shallow 
standard  of  happiness.  His  solvent  for  these  things  was : 
abolish  private  property  and  banish  money  from  its  social 
function.  Inequality  of  condition,  and  personal  greed  and  lux- 
ury, which  are  traceable  to  the  search  for  individual  wealth : 
this  is  at  the  bottom  of  social  wrongs  and  the  impediment  to 
social  happiness.  So  he  teaches,  and  we  hear  this  sentiment 
re-echoed  again  and  again  today.  In  other  words,  he  saw  500 
years  ago  much  that  we  see  today ;  but  what  is  equally  important, 
he  saw  many  abuses  which  we  do  not  see  today — so  mightily  has 
God's  providence  wrought  changes.  Modern  penology  and  juris- 
prudence have  done  just  what  he  clamored  for.  Modern  phil- 
anthropy and  charity  methods  have  met  much  of  his  economic 
arraignment  of  society,  and  yet  for  him  then,  with  such  clear 
vision  of  wrong,  there  was  but  one  way  of  expressing  himself: 
by  an  opposite  picture  of  a  different  communistic  state,  con- 
fessedly Utopian — for  it  can  be  abundantly  shown  from  the 
book  that  he  was  no  visionary  and  crank,  demanding  immediate 
realization.  That  ideal  state  was  meant  to  be  partly  parody, 
partly  satire,  but  partly  longing  hope  for  a  better  world.  The 
play  of  half-belief,  half-doubt  which  runs  through  the  book  is 
its  chief  literary  charm,  and  while  this  detracts  from  the  pole- 
mic value  of  the  "Utopia"  as  a  serious  book,  it  increased  its 
efficacy  as  a  safe  social  example  for  popular  effect.  Now, 
what  I  wish  especially  to  note  is  that  the  fundamental  economic 
positions  and  solvents  that  Sir  Thomas  More  put  forth  so  long 
ago  are  essentially  the  arraignments  and  solvents  of  modern 
socialism  today ;  and  yet  that  most  of  the  actual  economic 
wrongs  of  his  day,  as  he  saw  them,  have  been  practically  met 
by  history  since,  in  prosaic  fact,  in  non-utopian  forms.  Many  of 
Sir  Thomas  More's  charges  against  society  are  still  the  charges 
made  today  by  many  modern  writers,  and  the  economic  evils  of 
them  are  made  to  reappear  now  under  changed  conditions.  Much 
of  the  first  part  of  the  "Utopia,"  in  which  More  discusses  the 
social  economics  of  Henry  VIIFs  day,  reads  like  some  magazine 
article  of  yesterday.  Though  history  in  the  slow  but  sure 
process  of  time  has  met  most  of  Sir  Thomas  More's  concrete 


22  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

demands,  without  his  Utopia,  still  today  the  demand  of  some 
men  is  for  something  as  revolutionary  as  that  scheme  of  his. 
Either  the  reading  of  his  book,  in  connection  with  present  dis- 
cussions, confirms  us  in  our  high  estimate  of  the  value  of  social 
agitation  and  ideals,  while  yet  we  hold  on  to  the  patience  of 
God's  providence,  or  it  emphasizes  anew  the  perennial  demand 
by  some  in  nearly  every  generation  from  Plato  down  for  some 
sort  of  communistic  reconstruction  of  society. 

What,  now,  is  Sir  Thomas  More's  scheme? 

He  imagines  a  land  about  two  hundred  miles  square,  with 
fifty-four  cities  about  twenty-five  miles  apart,  Amaurot  the 
capital.  "He  who  knows  one  of  these  towns  knows  them  all," 
he  tells  us.  That  is  a  motto  which  might  be  written  over  every 
Utopia — a  dreary  monotony  is  their  own  arraignment.  "Their 
buildings  are  good  and  are  so  uniform  that  a  whole  side  of  a 
street  looks  like  one  house,"  he  says — a  description  very  much 
like  Campanula's.  Extensive  gardens  lie  back  of  all  the  houses. 
There  being  no  property  among  them,  every  man  may  freely 
enter  into  any  house  whatsoever.  Every  ten  years  they  shift 
their  houses  by  lot.  The  families  are  made  up  of  those  nearly 
related  to  each  other.  He  has  no  platonic  disregard  of  the 
home.  The  sons,  married  and  unmarried,  with  children  and 
grandchildren,  live  in  the  same  home  or  group  of  homes — a 
trace  of  early  family  communities.  They  live  in  a  sort  of 
patriarchal  obedience  to  their  common  family  chief,  reminding 
us  of  the  type  of  home  described  in  Crawford's  Italian  novels. 

Lest  any  city  should  become  either  too  great  or  by  accident 
be  dispeopled,  provision  is  made  that  none  of  their  cities  may 
contain  above  6,000  families,  besides  the  country  homes  con- 
tiguous. Here  is  modern  congestion  of  cities  solved  on  paper! 
Provision  is  made  for  transplanting  families  from  city  to  city,  if 
the  prescribed  number  is  exceeded,  and  for  colonizing  into  other 
lands  if  population  is  excessive,  gaining  land  peaceably  if  pos- 
sible ;  if  not,  by  war ;  for  one  of  More's  principles  is  that 
"every  man  has  by  the  law  of  nature  a  right  to  such  waste 
portion  of  the  earth  as  is  necessary  for  sustenance." 

No  family  may  have  less  than  ten,  nor  more  than  sixteen 
persons  in  it — but  as  there  can  be  no  determined  number  of 
children  under  age,  he  says,  the  rule  is  still  observed  by  trans- 
planting the  surplus  from  one  home  to  another.  Here,  indeed,' 


SOCIALISM  23 

is  your  Murray  Hill  and  Cherry  Street  problem,  and  the  Mal- 
thusian  peril  easily  solved  in  Utopia ! 

Their  social  structure  is  built  on  the  family.  Thirty  families 
choose  a  magistrate  who  is  called  a  syphogrant,  and  over  every 
ten  syphogrants  is  another  magistrate  called  a  tranibor.  All 
the  two  hundred  syphogrants  of  a  city  choose  a  prince  out  of  a 
list  of  four  named  by  the  people  of  the  four  wards  into  which 
every  city  is  divided.  The  election  is  by  secret  ballot  (Aus- 
tralian method?),  and  "if  any  one,"  says  he,  "aspires  to  any 
office  he  is  sure  not  to  compass  it."  Oh!  what  a  Utopia  in- 
deed! The  prince  is  for  life,  unless  removed  for  cause.  The 
tranibors  meet  every  three  days  with  the  prince  for  deliberation, 
but  there  are  always  two  syphogrants  of  the  people  present, 
and  these  are  changed  every  time.  No  star-chamber  in  Utopia ! 
He  tells  us  that  it  is  a  fundamental  rule  of  their  government 
that  "no  conclusion  can  be  made  in  anything  that  relates  to  the 
public,  until  it  has  first  been  debated  three  days ;  and  another 
rule  observed  is  never  to  debate  a  thing  on  the  same  day  in 
which  it  is  first  proposed."  No  hasty  legislation  in  Utopia ! 
Another  thing :  there  are  no  lawyers  in  Utopia,  says  the  greatest 
lawyer  of  his  day.  Surely  that  is  Utopian  modesty!  Upon 
certain  very  important  matters  legislation  is  referred  directly 
back  to  the  council  of  the  nation.  Here  is  the  idea  500  hundred 
years  ago  of  the  referendum,  as  yet  in  the  air. 

All  over  the  country  are  built  farmhouses  capable  of  enter- 
taining forty  men  and  women  and  two  slaves.  Every  year 
twenty  of  this  family  come  back  to  town  and  others  take  their 
places — so  that  the  experience  of  city  and  country  both  must  be 
known  by  all — with  ultimate  permission  to  permanent  residence 
in  the  country  if  so  desired.  Among  the  chief  industries  of 
the  farmers  is  chicken-raising — and  by  incubators,  too !  Oh ! 
modern  scientific  farmers !  Besides  agriculture,  every  man  and 
woman  learns  some  trade.  All  wear  the  same  clothing  excepting 
some  distinction  as  to  sex — and  the  fashion  never  changes! 
This  is,  perhaps,  the  ne  plus  ultra  of  Utopia;  yet  Mr.  Bellamy, 
too,  is  quite  sure  on  this  point  by  the  year  2000  A.D.  The 
chief  and  almost  the  only  business  of  the  syphogrants,  he  tells 
us,  is  to  take  care  that  no  men  may  live  idle:  very  important, 
we  should  say,  that  they  have  all  possible  leisure  for  so  big  a 
task — though  the  author  confidently  informs  us  that  there  are 


24  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

not  500  in  this  land  who  will  not  work.  Let  us  go  to  Utopia 
with  our  tramp  problem!  But  in  Utopia  men  do  not  wear 
themselves  out  with  perpetual  toil,  for  they  give  six  hours  only 
out  of  the  twenty-four  to  work.  Sir  Thomas  More  goes  two 
hours  better  than  our  eight-hour  movement.  At  eight  o'clock 
they  all  go  to  bed,  and  sleep  eight  hours,  and  when  they  waken 
there  are  public  lectures  before  daybreak  for  all  who  wish. 
Very  many  of  More's  arguments  and  some  of  his  methods  of 
betterment  are  found  in  current  discussions  today,  and  Mr. 
Bellamy  has  borrowed  specifically  from  his  ideas  and  program. 
Very  much  as  in  Boston  in  the  coming  century,  according  to 
Mr.  Bellamy,  More  tells  us  that  there  is  a  public  market-place 
in  the  four  wards  of  Amaurot.  Thither  are  brought  all  pro- 
ducts of  earth  and  factory  and  put  into  common  stock,  and 
from  thence  every  head  of  the  house  gets  anything  he  wants, 
without  pay  and  without  exchange.  There  is  no  danger,  he 
assures  us,  of  a  man's  asking  for  more  than  he  needs,  because 
there  is  no  inducement,  since  they  are  sure  of  being  always 
supplied.  Pride  is  also  eliminated,  as  well  as  want  in  his 
economics,  by  the  public  esteem  in  which  gold  and  jewels  are 
held;  for  in  Utopia  the  commonest  kitchen  and  chamber  utensils 
are  all  of  gold  and  silver,  as  also  the  chains  for  the  slaves, 
and  jewels  are  only  used  as  the  playthings  of  children.  They 
always  have  public  provisions  in  their  magazines  for  two  years 
ahead.  "There  are  no  taverns,  no  alehouses  nor  stews  among 
them,"  he  assures  us.  They  travel  without  money  and  work  at 
their  trade  as  they  go.  They  keep  up  the  home  life,  and  may 
eat  at  home,  but  generally  prefer  to  take  common  meals  in  a 
hall,  each  thirty  families  or  syphograntry  dining  together,  en- 
tertained by  reading  and  music  as  they  eat,  the  menial  work 
done  by  slaves  and  the  tables  served  by  the  children. 

Sir  Thomas  More  has  some  curious  suggestions  as  to  war 
— what  he  says  is  fine  irony  on  his  age.  Utopians,  he  tells  us, 
think  nothing  so  inglorious  as  the  glory  gained  by  war.  But 
as  war  there  must  be,  men  and  women  alike  are  trained  for  it. 
The  only  use  they  have  for  golden  money,  which  they  accumu- 
late for  the  purpose,  is  to  hire  soldiers  from  other  countries  to 
do  their  fighting  for  them.  Their  principle  is  that  as  they  seek 
out  the  best  sort  of  men  for  their  use  at  home,  so  they  make 
use  of  the  worst  sort  of  men  for  the  consumption  of  war,  and 
so  they  hire  mercenary  tribes  to  fight,  under  Utopian  generals, 


SOCIALISM  25 

however.  To  settle  a  war  speedily  they  use  enormous  bribes 
to  purchase  assassination  of  the  hostile  prince,  so  as  quickly  to 
kill  the  most  guilty,  and  save  the  carnage  of  the  common  sol- 
diery. This  is  the  chief,  and  only,  and,  according  to  them, 
appropriate  use  of  gold. 

The  most  notable  thing  in  the  Utopia,  for  the  age  in  which 
the  book  was  written,  and  in  view  of  Sir  Thomas  More's 
staunch  Catholicity,  is  his  provision  for  universal  religious  tol- 
eration of  all  faiths,  and  his  story  of  how  Christianity  in  open 
field  made  its  own  way.  One  of  Utopia's  oldest  laws  is  that  no 
man  ought  to  be  punished  for  his  religion.  He  also  has  a 
wonderful  scheme  of  religious  unity,  through  worship,  in  a 
cultus  in  which  all  worship  together  God,  and  yet  each  may  be 
worshiping  at  the  same  time  his  own  God.  His  priests  are  few 
in  number,  for  few,  he  says,  are  highly  enough  gifted  for  that 
office.  Ministers  are  chosen  by  the  people — a  bold  thing  for  a 
man  to  say  before  the  Reformation.  The  confessional,  says 
this  devoted  Roman  Catholic,  is  in  the  family,  to  the  father  of 
the  family,  and  among  themselves. 

We  thus  hear  in  More's  "Utopia"  some  notes  as  old  as 
Plato,  and  many  as  new  as  Bellamy.  His  scheme  has  many 
provisions  not  at  all  Utopian  to  our  democratic  ideas,  and  some 
ideals  which  are  yet  our.  purest  longings  in  political  and  social 
life.  His  methods  are  based,  however,  on  the  sophistries  of 
communism ;  and  yet,  despite  these  vagaries,  his  scheme  has  not 
the  philosophical  vagueness  of  Plato,  does  not  share  his  views 
as  to  the  family,  and  he  is  not  so  concretely  and  confidently 
sure  of  his  position  as  Bellamy. 

A  few  suggestions  occur  from  our  study. 

Utopists  as  all  these  writers  are,  I  think  we  are  struck  first 
by  the  fact  that,  with  the  exception  of  Campanella,  Harrington, 
Bellamy,  and  a  few  others,  they  are  nearly  all  men  of  eminence 
in  the  world's  thought.  So  that  amidst  fiction  and  vagary  there 
is  doubtless  some  substantial  truth.  We  have  marked  in  passing 
some  anticipations  of  subsequent  actualities.  They  seldom  have 
the  earnestness  and  conviction  of  cranks.  Plato  and  More  never 
give  you  the  impression  that  they  endorse  all  they  make  fictional. 
More's  life  and  public  career  are  opposed  to  some  things  he 
says.  The  object  of  his  method,  like  all  drama  and  fiction,  is 
to  give  latitude,  and  to  escape  the  consistency  of  a  publicist 
pamphlet.  The  great  difference  between  the  older  and  newer 


26  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Utopias  is  just  this:  neither  author  nor  earlier  generation  took 
them  seriously,  because  they  were  utterly  out  of  line  with 
existing  institutions.  It  is  remarkable  that,  with  the  exception 
of  Harrington,  no  utopist  suffered,  even  in  eras  of  persecution, 
for  his  social  revolutionary  views.  Campanella  wrote  his  "City 
of  the  Sun"  while  he  was  in  prison,  for  another  offense.  Har- 
rington's views  were  the  most  seriously  his  own,  and  his 
"Oceana"  was  England  then  and  there.  He  suffered  for  it. 
But  the  note  of  modern  socialistic  utopianism  is  its  earnestness 
and  its  immediateness.  The  French  revolution,  we  know,  was 
partly  the  work  of  French  philosophers  just  before,  and  Cabet's 
"Icaria"  and  Fourier's  "Philanstery"  and  other  schemes  besides 
set  men  at  once  to  founding  communities.  Mr.  Bellamy's  book 
means  business  now.  His  Utopia  is  all  set  up  by  2000  A.D., 
all  over  the  world;  and  his  "Equality"  tells  just  how  the 
change  was  wrought  in  all  details,  and  how  in  the  very  decade 
in  which  we  live  the  revolution  has  already  begun.  His  Utopia 
is,  to  his  mind,  logically  an  imminent  fact  of  history.  Bellamy's 
book  is  from  this  very  fact  different  from  any  ever  written,  and 
its  peril  is  its  boldness  and  immediateness.  He  seems  to  really 
think,  and  he  wishes  to  lead  others  to  believe,  that  here  and 
now  we  are  on  the  eve  of  setting  up  his  imaginary  common- 
wealth. The  Utopians  of  the  past  should  be  judged,  therefore, 
not  in  all  respects  as  the  programs  of  "their  authors,  nor  should 
they  be  judged  by  some  very  crude  and  absurd  features  of 
them,  but  by  the  general  principles  which  they  have  tentatively 
in  mind,  and  which  have  been  partially  realized  or  utterly 
rejected  in  the  slow  movement  of  history. 

Another  thing  to  remember  is  that  nearly  all  the  past  Utopias 
were  originally  written  not  in  the  vernacular,  but  for  select 
readers.  Moreover,  few  of  them  took  up  distinctively  the 
argument  from  the  standpoint  of  the  people  in  general,  or  as  a 
class  polemic.  This  is  the  entirely  different  tone  we  find  in 
French  Socialism  and  in  Bellamy's  nationalism.  It  is  a  social- 
istic type  of  democracy  which  is  the  keynote  of  modern  utopists. 
Again,  with  hardly  an  exception,  every  Utopia  contains  some 
readjustment  of  property,  or  some  type  of  communism.  This 
is  as  true  of  Plato  and  Fenelon  as  of  More  and  Bellamy.  This 
is  the  universal  language  of  dreamers;  it  is  a  world's  dream. 
However  mistaken  or  impracticable  the  programs,  the  testimony 
of  the  ages  is  a  longing  for  a  juster  economic  redistribution. 


SOCIALISM  27 

Again,  a  very  common  note,  but  by  no  means  universal,  is  some 
change  in  the  family  as  it  now  exists. 

Another  impression  from  all  the  Utopias  is  the  monotony 
and  dreariness  we  feel  as  we  consider  the  schemes  of  utopists. 
They  seem  little  to  conceive  how  much  of  the  real  joy  and 
incentive  of  life  and  its  deepest  motives  to  character  they 
uproot  in  gaining  some  questionable  economic  and  social  benefits. 

Once  more,  nearly  all  of  them,  while  speaking  in  the  name 
of  a  republican  ideal,  unconsciously  depict  a  strong  yet  hier- 
archical state,  a  virtual  despotism  in  practice  which  looks  so 
paternal  on  paper. 

Another  thing  impresses  us :  the  growing  emphasis  upon 
environment  as  compared  with  character.  Plato's  state  was 
built  upon  ideal  citizens ;  Bellamy's  (with  every  variation  of 
these  notes  between)  upon  ideal  environments.  There  may  be 
truth  in  both  extremes — but  Plato's  note,  in  this  regard,  is 
higher  than  the  dominant  note  of  our  own  day. 

Another  thought  is  the  common  ignoring  of  sin  as  a  social 
factor.  "It  was  not  so  in  Utopia,"  says  More,  say  all,  and  by 
that  easy  formula  they  leap  the  greatest  chasm  in  all  our  social 
problems.  This  is  the  root  objection  to  every  Utopian  program 
ever  invented,  and  the  great  practical  peril  of  indulging  dreams. 

But  the  converse  of  this  is  also  true:  that  all  Utopias,  how- 
ever vague  and  foolish,  however  they  ignore  facts  of  personal 
sin  and  evils  of  corporate  guilt,  do  yet  contribute  something, 
however  small,  to  the  world's  optimism,  and  do  show  an 
unquenchable  hope  in  a  possible  humanity. 


Outlook.    84:953-4.    December  22,  1906 

The  "Simple  Life"  in  the  South  Seas 

A  practical  experiment  in  the  "simple  life"  has  just  come 
to  grief  in  the  South  Seas.  In  1903  Herr  Lutzow,  a  musical 
director  of  one  of  the  Berlin  theaters,  Herr  Engelhardt,  a 
vegetarian  and  physician  of  Munich,  and  Herr  Bettman,  a 
philosopher,  together  with  a  number  of  other  kindred  souls, 
chiefly  authors,  musicians,  poets,  and  men  of  advanced  or 
socialistic  ideas,  wearied  of  clothes,  houses,  three  meals  per 
day,  and  the  routine  of  ordinary  life,  and  determined  to  leave 
behind  them  the  effete  civilization  of  Europe  and  seek  in  a 


28  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

remote  isle  of  the  southern  seas  a  dwelling-place  where  the 
"simple  life"  is  still  possible  and  where  they  could  attend 
chiefly  to  the  things  of  the  mind  and  spirit  with  a  minimum 
amount  of  trouble  and  care  for  the  body.  They  organized  a 
colony  of  Sun  Brothers  and  set  sail  for  their  new  Utopia,  the 
place  selected  being  Kobakon,  an  island  situated  in  German 
New  Guinea  in  the  New  Laurenburg  group  of  the  Bismarck 
archipelago,  between  New  Pommern  and  New  Mecklenburg. 
The  island,  only  165  acres  in  extent,  seemed  to  them  a  new 
Eden.  Cocoanut  and  mango  trees  offered  choice  fruit  merely 
for  the  picking.  The  fiber  of  the  cocoanut  served  them  for 
clothes,  the  sun  supplied  heat  and  the  sea  coolness,  and  no  bills 
were  ever  presented.  They  could  sit  in  the  sun  when  they 
wished  to  be  warm,  bathe  in  the  sea  when  they  wished  to  be 
cool.  They  could  give  practically  all  their  time  to  reading, 
amusement,  and  high  thought,  and  live  the  simple  life  in  per- 
fection. To  such  an  idyllic  dream  of  existence  it  is  sad  to  have 
to  append  a  few  hard  facts.  Herr  Lutzow  and  Herr  Engelhardt 
died,  probably  from  lack  of  proper  nourishment  or  from  a  too 
sudden  change  in  the  manner  of  their  living;  Herr  Bettman, 
the  philosopher,  was  killed  by  the  natives,  and  the  Sun  Brothers 
as  a  colony  have  broken  up.  The  survivors  are  glad  to  escape 
from  their  Eden  and  return  to  civilization  sadder  and  wiser  men 
and  with  greater  respect  for  the  institutions  which  a  few  years 
ago  they  gladly  deserted;  and  Kobakon,  the  happy  isle  of  the 
South  Seas,  is  now  merely  another  name  for  a  social  experiment 
that  failed.  The  story  is  an  instructive  one,  but  its  lesson,  like 
that  of  the  Brook  Farm  and  similar  experiments,  will  probably 
go  unheeded.  The  dreamers  will  still  dream,  whether  in  Ger- 
many, New  York,  or  New  Jersey.  And,  on  the  whole,  it  is 
well  for  progress  that  they  should.  There  is  a  divine  as  well 
as  a  vulgar  discontent,  and  from  the  former  society  as  a  whole 
receives  its  inspiration  to  progress,  even  though  as  respects  the 
dreamers  themselves  they  may  at  last  be  compelled  to  write  as 
an  epitaph  of  their  schemes,  Vanitas  vanitatum. 


SOCIALISM  29 

Blackwood's  Magazine.    13:338-42.    March,  1823 
Remarks  on  Mr.  Owen's  Plan 

It  is  a  common  and  well-founded  complaint  against  Mr. 
Owen  and  his  friends,  that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  discover 
any  process  of  reasoning,  by  which  they  can  have  arrived  at 
their  most  magnificent  conclusions.  They  seem  simply  to  have 
imbibed  certain  first  principles,  which  are  either  common  and 
unimportant,  or  new  and  absurd;  but  which,  at  all  events,  do  not 
appear  to  the  generality  of  mankind  to  lead  to  the  establish- 
ment of  any  new  system  of  human  nature.  But,  by  contemplat- 
ing these  principles  with  minds  dazzled  by  the  splendor  of  their 
own  fanciful  prospects,  they  have  brought  themselves  to  believe, 
that,  admitting  them,  the  truth  of  all  their  doctrines  becomes 
self-evident.  They  therefore  think  it  quite  superfluous  to  reason 
in  support  of  these  doctrines,  mistaking,  as  they  are  accustomed 
to  do,  a  ray  of  enthusiasm  for  the  light  of  a  self-evident  truth. 
Hence  it  happens,  that,  to  the  astonishment  of  those  with  whom 
they  converse,  or  who  read  their  books  or  pamphlets,  they 
continue  repeating,  in  every  variety  of  form,  the  same  familiar 
assertions,  without  ever  dreaming  that  it  is  also  necessary  to 
establish,  by  tangible  arguments,  the  conclusions  which  they 
draw  from  them. 

We  speak  not  now  of  the  practical  or  economical  part  of 
Mr.  Owen's  plan,  but  of  his  speculative  opinions  alone.  In  prac- 
tice, his  own  good  sense  is  often  found  to  correct  the  errors  of 
his  system.  And  we  wish  it  to  be  here  understood,  that  although 
we  should  succeed  in  proving  that  he  contemplates  impossibil- 
ities, and  does  not  rightly  comprehend  humanjnature  in  theory, 
we  do  not  imagine  that  we  would  therefore  be  justified  in  con- 
cluding that  none  of  his  projects,  when  regarded  by  itself,  and 
apart  from  the  man  and  his  opinions,  is  deserving  of  the  atten- 
tion or  support  of  those  who,  free  from  prejudice  of  any  kind, 
desire  only  the  happiness  of  their  fellow-creatures.  For  the 
present,  however,  directing  our  chief  attention  to  his  theoretical 
views,  we  shall  endeavor  to  state  one  or  two  of  those  plain 
reasons  which  seem  to  forbid  any  sensible  person  from  at  all 
entering  into  them,  and  the  influence  of  which,  in  old  society, 
it  seems  absolutely  necessary  for  Mr.  Owen  to  do  away,  before 
he  can  expect  the  general  diffusion  of  that  new  light  which 
shines  upon  his  own  understanding. 


30  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Man,  according  to  Mr.  Owen,  is  entirely  the  creature  of 
circumstances ;  and  he  is  a  good  and  a  happy  being,  or  a  wicked 
and  a  miserable,  according  as  those  combinations  of  circum- 
stances, by  which  he  has  been  surrounded  during  the  formation 
of  his  character,  have  been  combinations  favorable  or  unfavor- 
able to  its  proper  and  natural  development.  Hence  he  deduces 
the  importance  of  what  he  calls  the  science  of  circumstances; 
which  is  the  science  that  is  to  teach  us  so  to  combine  and 
control  circumstances,  as  to  elevate  and  improve  human  nature, 
in  a  manner  quite  inconceivable  by  those  who  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  contemplate  it,  solely  as  it  has  been  debased  by  the 
selfish  vices  of  old  society.  This  inestimable  science  he  pro- 
fesses to  teach  us,  and  has  reduced  to  a  system  of  rules  which 
he  promises  speedily  to  put  in  practice ;  so  that,  ere  long,  without 
any  great  revulsion  of  nature,  but  by  a  gradual  return  to  an 
order  of  things  which  she  has  at  first  established,  but  from 
which  men  have  in  their  ignorance  and  folly  departed,  all 
selfishness,  vice,  and  misery,  shall  be  completely  banished  from 
the  world. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  we  may  boldly  question  Mr.  Owen's 
power,  or  the  united  power  of  all  mankind,  so  to  control  cir- 
cumstances as  to  prevent  the  inroads  of  vice,  misery,  and  self- 
ishness. To  talk  of  controlling,  agreeably  to  the  will  of  any 
individual,  or  set  of  men,  the  operation  of  all  those  unseen 
causes  which  influence  the  formation  of  human  character,  is 
truly  impious.  Can  Mr.  Owen  reverse  the  decrees  of  fate,  and 
so  regulate  the  accidents  to  which  human  beings  are  liable,  as 
to  remove  from  them  all  temptation  to  sin,  and  exempt  them 
from  all  chance  of  misery?  The  circumstances  of  which  he  is 
constantly  speaking,  are,  rightly  considered,  the  destiny  of  man. 

"But  who  can  turn  the  stream  of  destinee, 
Or  break  the  chain  of  strong  necessitee?" 

If  it  is  the  will  of  Heaven  that  a  frail  mortal  shall  yield 
to  temptation,  and  suffer  the  penalties  of  guilt,  is  there  any 
power  on  earth  that  will  prevent  him?  But  we  would  simply 
question  Mr.  Owen's  power  to  do  so,  on  the  ground  of  moral 
impossibility.  Can  he,  then,  weigh  the  exact  force  of  unruly 
nature,  so  as  to  be  able  to  apportion,  with  an  unerring  hand, 
the  weight  of  motive  which  is  necessary,  in  order  to  determine 
each  individual  to  a  course  of  conduct  uniformly  virtuous?  Is 
it  not  part  of  his  own  system,  that  the  conduct  of  no  individual 


SOCIALISM  31 

is  under  his  own  immediate  control  for  a  moment?  Can  he 
expect,  then,  that  the  conduct  of  all  the  members  of  a  community 
will  ever  be  completely  under  the  control  of  another,  acting, 
not  immediately,  but  merely  through  a  set  of  regulations? 

Moralists  have  ever  been  in  the  habit  of  deploring  the 
frequent  ruin  of  a  whole  fabric  of  virtuous  principles,  through 
the  slow  and  secret  influence  of  combinations  of  circumstances, 
which  neither  the  individual  himself,  nor  those  who  best  knew 
his  character,  could  have  regarded  as  in  the  least  degree  danger- 
ous. How  the  Saint  of  Motherwell  is  to  be  secured  against  the 
operation  of  causes  which  it  seems  impossible  to  remove  with- 
out changing  earth  into  heaven  at  once,  Mr.  Owen  has  yet  to 
explain.  The  glance  of  a  woman's  eye  is  sufficient  to  make  any 
mere  earthly  saint  overstep  that  limit,  beyond  which  every 
farther  step  leads  to  utter  destruction.  It  will  be  strange,  indeed, 
if  the  influence  of  unruly  passions,  which  have  often  subdued 
the  strongest  resolutions  of  men  whose  fame,  honor,  and  fortune 
depended  upon  the  characters  they  had  to  support  in  society, 
and  who  also  believed  that  their  happiness  throughout  all 
eternity  depended  upon  their  conduct  in  this  life,  shall  be 
set  at  utter  defiance  by  a  set  of  manufacturing  agriculturists, 
educated  in  the  dangerous  persuasion,  that  for  no  action  which 
they  can  perform,  are  they  subject  either  to  censure  or 
punishment.1 

But,  secondly,  we  maintain  that  it  is  necessary  to  take  into 
account  something  else  than  the  mere  circumstances  in  which  a 
man  has  been  placed  from  infancy,  before  we  can  securely 
predicate  the  specific  effect  which  they  will  have  in  forming  his 
character.  For,  although  it  may  be  true  that  the  character  of 
each  particular  individual  is  formed  by  circumstances  it  is  not 
true  that  the  characters  of  all  men  are  formed  by  them  alike. 
Mr.  Owen  is  not,  it  will  be  observed,  so  unreasonable  as  to 
deny  the  existence  of  original  diversities  among  the  minds,  as 
well  as  the  bodies  of  individuals.  But  yet  we  perceive,  that,  in 
speculating  upon  the  effects  of  his  new  system  of  training, 
founded  upon  the  principles  of  "the  science  of  circumstances," 

1  We  are  told  that  the  parish  records  of  Lanark  abundantly  attest  the 
frailty  of  many  of  the  imperfectly  regenerated  daughters  of  New  Society. 
At  present,  however,  we  are  bound  to  presume,  that  at  Motherwell,  the 
female  breast  is  to  be  guarded  by  an  armor  of  virtue  which  shall  be  proof 
against  all  the  assaults  of  all  the  young  men  of  Hamilton  and  the  adjacent 
villages.  It  is  somewhat  amusing  to  think  of  the  astonishment  which  the 
more  presumptuous  among  these  young  men  will  experience  at  the  un- 
precedented failure  of  all  their  attempts. — C.  N. 


32  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

he  keeps  these  original  diversities  entirely  out  of  view,  and 
forgets  to  ascribe  to  them  any  portion  of  their  known  and 
acknowledged  efficacy  in  modifying  the  influence  of  circum- 
stances. His  doctrine  simply  is,  that,  by  educating  all  men  alike 
well,  we  shall  soon  make  them  all  alike  good  and  happy.  But 
then  it  will  be  observed,  that  the  system  of  training  which  he 
has  in  view  is  one  adapted,  not  to  an  infinite  variety  of  real 
subjects,  but  to  one  single  imaginary  subject,  which  he  calls 
mankind,  human  nature,  etc.  Every  parish  school-master  knows, 
and  we  can  assure  Mr.  Owen  that  the  teachers  at  New  Lanark 
have  found  by  experience,  that  the  same  kind  and  gentle  usage, 
which  calls  forth  the  gratitude  and  stimulates  the  exertions  of  a 
boy  of  mild  disposition,  will  encourage  rebellion  in  another  of 
a  turbulent  and  unruly  temper.  The  best  systems  of  education, 
therefore,  are  undoubtedly  those  which  afford  the  most  perfect 
provision  for  those  natural  diversities  which  subsist  among  the 
minds  of  children ;  or  at  least  no  good  system  can  entirely  want 
such  a  provision.  The  passions  of  shame,  hope,  and  fear,  must 
be  alternately  addressed,  and  are  alternately  addressed,  in  old 
society,  but  each  with  different  results  in  different  cases.  How 
Mr.  Owen's  proposed  system  of  education  can  be  carried  on 
entirely  by  kindness,  and  without  addressing  these  passions  in 
some  mode  or  other,  we  cannot  well  guess.  We  are  afraid, 
then,  that  he  must  just  be  contented  to  retain  all  the  more 
essential  principles  of  the  old  system;  and  if  so,  let  him  prove 
to  us,  if  he  can,  that  he  is  entirely  to  change  human  nature  by 
means  of  those  apparently  unimportant  alterations  which  he 
means  to  adopt  in  the  mode  of  reducing  these  principles  into 
practice. 

Mr.  Owen,  instead  of  following  the  Baconian  process  of 
induction,  and  carefully  observing  whether  or  not  his  affirmations 
are  separately  true  of  every  single  individual,  seems  simply  to 
have  satisfied  himself  that  they  accord  generally  with  his  abstract 
idea  of  the  species  of  man;  an  idea  into  which  the  peculiarities 
of  John,  James,  and  William  do  not  at  all  enter.  Thus,  he 
thinks  he  has  discovered,  that,  in  order  to  be  happy,  men  have 
only  to  be  good,  and  kind,  and  benevolent.  But  because  he 
himself,  and  other  excellent  moralists,  are  satisfied  of  the  justice 
of  this  principle,  he  at  once  concludes,  not  merely  that  all  man- 
kind must  soon  be  convinced  of  it  too,  but  that  each  single  and 
separate  individual  scoundrel  must,  of  necessity,  adopt  it  as  a 


SOCIALISM  33 

principle  of  action,  sufficiently  strong  to  repress  every  selfish 
and  turbulent  appetite,  which  now  rules  supreme  in  his  breast. 
Following  up  this  notable  conclusion,  he  tells  the  children  of 
his  establishments  to  be  good,  and  kind  to  each  other,  and  avoid 
selfishness;  but  parents,  ministers  of  religion  and  teachers  of 
youth,  do  the  same  in  old  society.  Now,  what  peculiar  charm 
are  these  good  advices  to  acquire  by  issuing  out  of  his  mouth, 
and  the  mouths  of  those  who  are  to  carry  his  system  into  effect? 
Are  not  those  who  believe  in  the  Christian  religion  convinced 
that  they  must  obey  the  commands  of  God  in  order  to  be  happy, 
not  only  in  this  life,  but  throughout  all  eternity?  But  who 
among  them  has  not  to  reproach  himself  every  day  on  account 
of  his  disobedience?  And  yet  Mr.  Owen  flatters  himself  that 
he  can  ensure  an  universal  obedience  to  his  precepts,  merely 
because  he  himself  is  convinced,  and  so  hopes  to  convince  all 
mankind,  that  they  must  act  conformably  to  them,  and  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  strongest  principles  of  their  nature,  in  order  to  be 
comfortable  and  happy  in  the  present  world !  Is  it  possible  for 
vain  man  to  entertain  a  hope  so  foolish? 

Punishments  and  rewards  have,  in  all  ages,  constituted  the 
chief  instruments  which  men  have  employed  in  forming  the 
characters,  and  regulating  the  conduct,  of  their  fellow-creatures. 
But  these  are  to  form  no  part  of  the  "circumstances"  of  new 
society,  as  controlled  by  Mr.  Owen  and  his  friends. 

According  to  them,  all  punishments  and  all  rewards  are  alike 
unreasonable  in  principle,  and  injurious  in  their  consequences  to 
society.  The  character  of  every  man,  say  they,  is  just  such  as 
nature  gave  him,  and  circumstances  have  modified ;  and  therefore 
his  conduct,  whatever  it  may  be,  ought  neither  to  entitle  him  to 
praise  or  reward,  nor  to  subject  him  to  blame  or  punishment. 
In  order  to  prove  the  fallacy  of  this  reasoning,  it  is  by  no  means 
necessary,  as  some  appear  to  have  supposed,  to  establish  the 
doctrine  of  moral  liberty.  We  leave  Mr.  Owen  to  settle  with 
his  own  conscience  the  matter  of  his  accountableness  in  the  next 
world.  But  we  tell  him,  that  whether  his  character  has  been 
formed  for  him  or  by  him,  he,  in  common  with  all  mankind, 
may  be  a  fit  subject  both  for  punishment  and  reward,  in  this. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  we  may  remark,  that  an  act  which 
may  appear,  to  a  person  viewing  it  in  one  light  only,  to  be  unjust 
towards  an  individual,  may,  nevertheless,  when  viewed  in  all  its 
bearings,  prove  to  be  not  only  an  act  of  justice  to  society  but 


34  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

to  be  even  necessary  to  its  very  subsistence.  But  what  is  pun- 
ishment, rightly  administered,  according  to  the  more  correct 
notions  entertained  of  it  in  old  society;  or  in  what  light  can  it 
be  viewed  as  unjust?  Mr.  Owen's  mistake  seems  to  consist  in 
supposing  it  to  be  an  infliction  of  evil,  for  the  mere  purpose 
of  giving  pain  to  an  individual ;  for,  on  no  other  supposition 
can  he  be  justified  in  condemning  it.  It  is,  however,  an  infliction 
of  evil,  intended  to  conduce  to  the  general  good,  and  sanctioned 
by  this  broad  principle  of  all  law,  that  the  rights  of  individuals 
must  yield  to  the  higher  rights  of  the  communities  to  which 
they  belong.  Therefore,  until  Mr.  Owen  shows  us  the  inex- 
pediency of  punishment,  and  proves  to  us  that  society  can  subsist 
without  it,  he  must  admit  that  the  principle  upon  which  it,  in 
common  with  reward,  is  founded,  is  quite  correct.  He  asserts, 
it  is  true,  that  the  time  is  fast  approaching  when,  through  the 
blessed  influence  of  his  system,  the  reign  of  folly  and  of  crime 
shall  cease,  and  when  Christopher  North  and  the  administrators 
of  the  law  shall  be  alike  useless  to  mankind.  We  leave  him  and 
his  disciples  in  full  and  undisturbed  possession  of  this  most 
pleasant  dream ;  and  we  sincerely  wish  that  we  could  participate 
with  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  it. 

But,  secondly,  we  would  ask,  are  the  punishments  which  God 
and  Nature  inflict — the  punishments  of  conscience — unjust? 
Surely,  if  it  were  true  that  the  consideration  of  our  characters 
being  formed  for  us,  and  not  by  us,  necessarily  does  away  all 
guilt,  it  should  necessarily  do  away  all  remorse  also;  and  there- 
fore, according  to  Mr.  Owen's  system,  the  man  who  has  com- 
mitted the  most  horrid  crimes,  who  has  murdered  his  father  or 
his  child,  should  regard  his  own  conduct  with  the  same  self- 
complacency  with  him  who  has  performed  the  most  virtuous 
or  heroic  actions.  But  since  we  find  that,  in  fact,  the  criminal 
has  it  not  in  his  power  to  still  the  clamorings  of  conscience,  it 
necessarily  follows,  by  a  reductio  ad  absurdum,  either  that  God, 
in  constituting  our  minds,  has  erred  and  done  injustice,  or  else 
that  Mr.  Owen,  in  reprobating  all  punishment,  is,  in  some  way 
or  other,  mistaken. 

Thirdly,  Mr.  Owen  will  observe,  that  a  single  word  inad- 
vertently spoken, — even  an  involuntary  look, — may  frequently 
constitute  punishment  severer  than  stripes.  How,  then,  are  man- 
kind able,  even  though  they  were  willing,  to  cease  altogether 


SOCIALISM  35 

from  inflicting  punishment?  Surely  Mr.  Owen  does  not  wish 
that  the  whole  world  should  be  perfectly  indifferent  with  respect 
to  his  own  character.  But  if  any  one  feels  for  him  the  highest 
esteem,  is  not  this  of  itself  reward?  If  any  one  regards  him 
with  utter  detestation,  may  not  this  of  itself  be  punishment? 

And  lastly,  a  community  where  no  individual  possesses  any 
kind  of  ambition,  either  honorable  or  dishonorable,  is  an  anomaly 
which  cannot  well  be  conceived.  We  would  like  to  know  what 
stimuli  Mr.  Owen  thinks  he  can  substitute  for  those  implanted 
by  nature  in  the  human  mind,  which  will  be  of  sufficient  strength 
to  prevent  such  a  community  from  sinking  speedily  into  wretch- 
edness and  barbarism.  For  what  a  useless  being  were  man, 
destitute  of  the  hope  of  reward !  Everything  great  and  noble  in 
his  nature  would  be  repressed ;  since  those  motives  which  alone 
are  capable  of  inciting  him  to  great  and  noble  actions,  would 
have  lost  all  their  efficacy.  Mr.  Owen  expressly  condemns  every 
kind  of  emulation,  as  leading  to  conduct  decidedly  selfish.  He 
tells  us,  that,  in  new  society,  men  will  be  convinced  of  the  folly 
of  striving  for  preeminence  over  their  fellows ; — or,  in  other 
words,  that  they  will  seek  for  no  kind  of  honorable  distinction. 
Is  this  consummation  desirable? — or,  if  desirable,  can  it  be 
attained  ? 

We  admit  that  much  ignorance  has  often  prevailed  in  the 
world  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  punishment,  and  the  proper 
mode  of  administering  it.  With  the  desire  of  benefiting  its 
unfortunate  objects,  the  love  of  revenge  is  too  often  improperly 
blended.  But  which  of  our  lawful  desires  is  always  found  pure, 
and  uncontaminated  by  others  that  are  unlawful?  It  is  not  the 
less  necessary  for  school-masters  to  use  the  rod,  because  they 
sometimes  gratify  their  own  selfish  feelings  by  doing  so,  at  the 
same  time  that  they  benefit  their  pupils. 

Let  Mr.  Owen,  however,  make  what  improvements  he  pleases, 
upon  the  system  of  rewards  and  punishments  at  present  estab- 
lished in  old  society,  provided  he  does  not  attempt  to  do  them 
away  altogether.  In  the  education  of  children,  for  example,  let 
him  make  use  of  no  other  motives  than  those  addressed  directly 
to  the  moral  feelings,  if  he  finds  that,  in  practice,  corporal 
inflictions  may  be  advantageously  dispensed  with.  In  short,  let 
him  elevate  and  improve  our  nature  as  much  as  he  can,  by 
taking  it  as  he  finds  it,  and  working  upon  its  original  elements. 


36  SOCIALISM 

But  let  him  not  rashly  and  presumptuously  attempt  to  give  it 
a  new  birth,  by  changing  its  essential  properties,  and  altering  the 
laws  of  its  inherent  constitution. 

Perhaps  we  have  now  said  enough  concerning  the  abstract 
principles  upon  which  Mr.  Owen's  system  is  built.  Hitherto 
our  task  has  been  rather  an  unpleasant  one,  occupied  as  we  have 
been  solely  in  reviewing  what  we  believe  to  be  the  errors  of  a 
person  whom  we  esteem  for  the  purity  of  his  motives,  and 
whom  every  one  must  acknowledge  to  have  done  much  real 
good, — in  educating  the  poor — in  studying  their  personal  com- 
fort,— and  in  abridging  their  hours  of  labor.  Perhaps,  however, 
when  we  may  hereafter  find  time  to  resume  the  subject  of  the 
present  article,  and  come  to  treat  of  his  economical  arrange- 
ments, as  suited  to  the  condition  of  the  working  classes,  we  shall 
find  that  these  arrangements,  modified  and  controlled,  as  they 
doubtless  will  be,  by  the  good  sense  of  the  country  gentlemen 
who  have  already  sanctioned  their  adoption,  may  have  something 
in  them  to  meet  our  approbation. 


CHRISTIAN  SOCIALISM 

Atlantic  Monthly.     77:109-18.    January,  1896 

The  Christian  Socialist  Movement  of  the  Middle  of  the  Century. 

J.  M.  Ludlow 

What  was  first  called  "Christian  Socialism"  in  England, — a 
very  different  thing,  I  need  hardly  say,  from  that  which  now 
calls  itself  so  in  Germany  or  Austria, — although  the  name  was 
not  adopted  till  1850,  dates  in  fact,  as  a  self-conscious  effort, 
from  what  Mr.  Maurice  once  called  "that  awful  year  1848," 
which  he  said  he  should  "always  look  upon  as  one  of  the  great 
epochs  in  history."  Socialism — we  should  always  take  care  not  to 
narrow  that  word  to  the  creed  of  this  or  that  group  of  the  day, 
which  may  arrogate  to  itself  a  special  right  to  it — then  burst  out 
of  obscurity  as  a  power  capable  of  upsetting  thrones.  The  idea 
of  working  together  instead  of  working  against  one  another,  of 
possessing  together  instead  of  possessing  exclusively  for  one's 
self,  had  taken  hold  of  the  workers  themselves  more  or  less  in 
all  the  capitals  and  great  towns  of  Europe,  but  more  especially 
in  that  capital  which  then,  much  more  than  now,  led  the  popular 
thought  of  the  continent, — Paris.  Be  it  observed  that  the  Social- 
ism of  those  days  was  not  the  atheistic  Socialism  of  the  later 
German  schools.  All  the  Socialist  leaders  of  the  continent  were 
French,  and,  however  far  they  might  be  from  Christianity,  not 
one  of  them  professed  or  inculcated  atheism.  The  earliest 
among  them,  a  child  of  the  first  French  revolution,  Fourier, 
inveighed  against  atheism  and  materialism ;  and  if,  with  the 
strangest  irreverence,  he  ranked  God  as  one  of  three  first  prin- 
ciples with  nature  and  mathematics,  he  recognized  Him  as 
Creator,  as  the  source  of  unity  and  distributive  justice,  as  the 
universal  Providence,  and  held  that  our  social  evils  acted  as  a 
limit  on  his  justice  and  goodness.  St.  Simon's  last  work  was 
entitled  "A  Treatise  on  the  New  Christianity,"  and  professed 
to  show  the  means  of  carrying  out  the  law  of  God.  Proudhon 
began  his  eccentric  career  by  a  prize  essay  on  the  Celebration  of 
Sunday."  Cabet,  a  pure  Communist,  of  very  inferior  intellectual 
caliber  to  the  men  I  have  mentioned,  called  the  work  in  which 
he  set  forth  his  social  views,  "True  Christianity."  Louis  Blanc 
6 


38  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

urged  men  to  have  "a  brave  enough  trust  in  God's  justice  to 
struggle  against  the  permanence  of  evil  and  its  lying  immortal- 
ity." In  one  of  his  most  remarkable  works,  that  on  "Christianity 
and  Its  Democratic  Origin,"  Pierre  Leroux  wrote  that  "if  Chris- 
tianity be  wholly  a  gross  error  of  the  human  mind,  the  best 
thing  to  do  is  to  doubt  everything,  and  declare  forever  the 
human  spirit  incapable  of  establishing  any  moral  truth  on  a 
solid  basis."  The  most  practical  of  all  the  French  Socialist 
leaders,  Buchez,  was  at  once  an  ardent  democrat  and  a  con- 
vinced Roman  Catholic.  Even  in  England,  if  Robert  Owen,  in 
his  celebrated  address  at  the  London  Tavern,  August  21,  1817, 
declared  that  "in  all  the  religions  which  have  been  hitherto 
forced  on  the  minds  of  men,  deep,  dangerous,  and  lamentable 
principles  of  disunion,  division,  and  separation"  had  been  "fast 
entwined  with  all  their  fundamental  dogmas,"  yet  so  far  was 
he  from  opposing  Christianity  as  such  that  a  few  minutes  before 
he  had  declared  that  "individualized  man  and  all  that  is  truly 
valuable  in  Christianity  are  so  separated  as  to  be  utterly  incap- 
able of  union  through  all  eternity.  Let  those,"  he  said,  "who 
are  interested  for  the  universal  adoption  of  Christianity  endeavor 
to  understand  this."  Working  altogether  in  the  shade,  the 
mystic  Greaves,  the  "Sacred  Socialist,"  taught  that  "all  human 
laws  not  in  accordance  with  divine  laws  are  founded  on  error." 
When  I  put  all  these  utterances  of  mid-century  Socialism 
together,  I  feel,  far  more  deeply  even  than  I  did  in  1848  that, 
with  whatever  false  and  even  immoral  teaching  they  were  mixed, 
they  represented  a  passionate  cry  for  a  uniting  Christ.  To  that 
cry  the  churches,  without  one  single  exception,  were  deaf.  In- 
stead of  seeking  to  understand  the  movement,  to  distinguish  in  it 
between  what  was  genuine,  living,  hopeful,  and  what  was  false, 
excessive,  dangerous,  they  looked  on  bewildered,  or  joined  with 
its  opponents  to  hoot  and  crush  the  whole  thing  down.  Only 
here  and  there  a  minister  of  religion  heard  that  cry.  On  the 
continent,  I  can  really  recall  but  one  name  at  the  time  I  speak 
of,  that  of  Philippe  Boucher,  a  minister  of  the  French  Calvinist 
church,  but  he  had  no  helpers.  The  first  clergyman  to  hear  the 
cry  in  England  was  Frederick  Denison  Maurice,  then  professor 
of  English  literature  and  modern  history  and  of  theology  at 
King's  College,  and  chaplain  of  Lincoln's  Inn.  One  of  the  most 
valuable  amongst  his  published  volumes,  that  on  "The  Lord's 
Prayer,"  contained  sermons  preached  between  February  13  and 


SOCIALISM  39 

April  9,  1848,  and  consequently  covers  the  outbreak  of  the 
French  revolution  of  February  in  that  year.  In  the  sermon  of 
March  5,  on  the  words  "Thy  will  be  done,  as  in  heaven  so  in 
earth,"  the  following  passages  may  be  noted:  "How  can  one 
ever  make  it  a  charge  against  any  people  that  they  hope  for  a 
brotherhood  upon  earth  ?  .  .  .  Every  hope  points  upwards ;  if 
it  cannot  find  an  object,  it  is  in  search  of  one;  you  cannot  crush 
it  without  robbing  your  fellow-creatures  of  a  witness  for  God 
and  an  instrument  of  purification.  .  .  .  Christianity  as  a 
mere  system  of  doctrines  or  practices  will  never  make  men 
brothers.  By  Christianity  we  must  understand  the  reconciliation 
of  mankind  to  God  in  Christ,  we  must  understand  the  power  and 
privilege  of  saying  'Our  Father — Thy  will  be  done  in  earth  as  it 
is  in  heaven/  .  .  .  This  prayer  .  .  .  does  not  treat  the 
projects  of  men  for  universal  societies,  unbounded  pantisoc- 
racies,  as  too  large.  It  overreaches  them  all  with  these  words, 
'as  in  heaven.' "  The  whole  spirit  of  Christian  Socialism  is  in 
such  passages,  though  the  term  was  not  used,  as  I  have  said, 
till  two  years  later. 

It  would  be  affectation  for  me  to  seek  to  conceal  the  share 
which  I  may  have  had  in  leading  Mr.  Maurice  to  the  expression 
of  such  views.  Seven  years  later,  in  dedicating  to  me  his  vol- 
ume on  "Learning  and  Working,"  he  spoke  of  a  letter  which 
he  had  received  from  me  early  in  the  year  1848,  when  I  had 
seen  Paris  immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  the  Orleans  fam- 
ily, as  having  "had  a  very  powerful  effect"  upon  his  thoughts  at 
the  time,  and  having  "given  a  direction  to  them  ever  since."  I 
had  dear  ones  in  Paris  when  the  revolution  took  place;  I  had 
reached  the  city  by  the  first  train  that  entered  it  on  the  railway 
that  I  had  chosen;  I  had  spent  much  of  my  stay  in  the  streets, 
which  offered  the  most  marvelous  spectacle  I  have  ever  wit- 
nessed. The  gagging  of  public  opinion  by  the  Louis  Philippist 
regime  having  suddenly  ceased,  the  whole  city  seemed  bubbling 
out  into  speech.  A  man  brought  a  stool  or  a  chair,  got  up  on 
it,  and  began  to  speak  on  any  conceivable  subject.  If  two  men 
spoke  a  little  loudly  together  in  the  street,  a  group  formed  round 
them  in  two  minutes.  Well-nigh  all  Paris  was  from  morning 
till  night  one  Athenian  agora;  or,  say,  what  the  northeast  corner 
of  Hyde  Park  is  today  in  London  of  a  Sunday  afternoon, 
except  that  what  is  now  the  routine  of  open-air  speaking  was 
then  an  eagerly  sought  novelty.  And  the  keynote  of  all  was  that 


40  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

this  was  not  a  political  but  a  social  revolution,  and  the  largest 
groups  always  indicated  a  speaker  on  some  social  subject. 
There  was  no  hostility  to  religion  and  none  to  its  outward  mani- 
festations, as  there  had  been  at  the  revolution  of  1830,  when  I 
had  been  living  in  Paris :  priests,  instead  of  putting  on  civil 
dresses,  passed  in  their  clerical  costumes  unmolested  through 
the  streets;  Sisters  of  Charity  met  with  nothing  but  affectionate 
sympathy.  I  never  saw  a  priest  or  a  minister  of  any  denomi- 
nation address  the  crowd.  The  conviction  was  forced  upon  me 
that  Socialism  must  be  Christianized,  but  that  only  a  truly  social 
Christianity  could  do  the  work.  Such  was  the  purport  of  the 
letter  in  question. 

The  state  of  things  in  England  was  different.  The  popular 
movement  here  was  still  mainly  political,  not  social.  Chartism 
was  the  chief  disturbing  force.  And  although  there  had  latterly 
been  a  disposition  among  the  Chartists  to  take  up  social  ques- 
tions, it  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  "six  points"  of  the 
"People's  Charter" — universal  suffrage,  annual  parliaments,  vote 
by  ballot,  equal  electoral  districts,  payment  of  members,  and  no 
property  qualification — dealt  with  no  single  subject  which  would 
now  be  called  a  social  one.  Still,  the  abortive  Chartist  meeting 
of  April  10,  1848,  was  unquestionably  the  direct  result  of  the 
French  social  revolution  of  February. 

I  have  told  elsewhere  (Economic  Review  for  October,  1893) 
— and  the  story  is  also  told  more  or  less  in  the  "Life  of 
Maurice"  and  that  of  Kingsley  (not  quite  correctly  in  the  lat- 
ter)— how  the  accident  of  my  not  having  cared  to  claim  a  special 
constable's  truncheon  brought  me  into  contact  and  friendship 
with  Charles  Kingsley;  how  a  placard  by  the  latter  addressed 
to  the  "Workmen  of  England"  was  posted  all  over  London ; 
how  the  issue  was  decided  on  of  a  weekly  periodical,  Politics 
for  the  People,  of  which  Mr.  Maurice  and  I  were  joint  editors. 
Properly  speaking,  that  journal  represents  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  Socialist  movement  in  its  application  to  political  sub- 
jects; but  we  took  the  word  "politics"  in  its  broadest  sense, 
since  we  claimed  that  not  only  "the  rights  of  a  man  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law,  and  his  functions,  if  any,  in  the  business  of  govern- 
ment," but  "the  rate  of  his  wages,  and  the  interest  he  gets  for 
his  money,  and  the  state  of  his  dwelling,  and  the  cut  of  his 
coat,  and  the  print  he  stops  to  look  at,  and  the  tune  he  hums, 
and  the  books  he  reads,  and  the  talk  he  has  with  his  neighbors, 
and  the  love  he  bears  to  his  wife  and  children  and  friends,  and 


SOCIALISM  41 

the  blessing  he  asks  of  his  God,— ay,  and  still  more,  the  love 
which  he  does  not  bear  to  others,  and  the  blessing  he  does  not 
ask  of  his  God, — are  all  political  matters."  The  paper  lasted  three 
months  only.  But  its  results  were  not  unimportant.  Round  a 
nucleus,  at  the  center  of  which  was  Mr.  Maurice,  consisting  at 
first  of  Kingsley,  his  friend  Charles  Mansfield,  and  myself,  it 
brought  a  band  of  young  or  middle-aged  men  from  the  educated 
classes,  anxious  to  help  their  fellows,  who  began  soon  to  meet 
one  evening  a  week  at  Mr.  Maurice's  house.  The  extinction  of 
Politics  for  the  People  only  led  to  another  kind  of  work,  the 
setting-up  of  a  free  evening  school, — at  first  only  for  men,  but 
into  which  boys,  too,  soon  forced  their  way, — in  a  yard  of  Great 
Ormond  Street  (nearly  opposite  what  is  now  the  Working  Men's 
College),  with  a  very  rough  population,  which  (in  conjunction 
with  a  girls'  school  under  a  mistress  paid  by  us)  it  ended  by 
civilizing.  A  few  months  later,  a  series  of  weekly  meetings 
commenced  for  reading  the  Bible  under  Mr.  Maurice's  guidance, 
a  deeply  interesting  account  of  which,  by  one  of  the  most  valua- 
ble members  of  our  little  group,  Charles  Mansfield,  will  be  found 
in  Mr.  Maurice's  life.  These  were  continued  for  several  years, 
and  I  shall  always  say  were  the  very  heart  of  the  movement 
while  they  lasted.  Many  of  us,  I  may  observe,  were  in  the  habit 
of  attending  the  Sunday  afternoon  services  at  Lincoln's  Inn 
Chapel,  when  the  chaplain  preached. 

Moreover,  in  the  very  month  of  July,  1848,  which  was  the 
last  of  Politics  for  the  People's  brief  life,  there  had  appeared 
in  Eraser's  Magazine  the  first  part  of  "Yeast";  and  though  the 
ill  health  of  its  author  brought  the  work  to  an  untimely  con- 
clusion in  December  of  that  year,  it  had  given  unmistakable 
proof  that  we  had  in  our  little  band  a  novelist  of  real  genius, 
one  who  looked  straight  at  the  evils  of  the  day  and  could  speak 
plainly  upon  them.  And  we  had  another  amongst  us  who, 
although  none  of  us  guessed  it,  was  destined  before  many  years 
were  over  to  write  a  work  of  wide-spreading  influence,  under 
the  guise  of  a  mere  novel  for  boys,  the  future  author  of  "Tom 
Brown's  School  Days,"  who  had  joined  us  just  when  we  were 
planning  our  free  school  in  Little  Ormond  Yard.  For  a  time, 
and  indeed  for  years  afterwards,  we  knew  in  "Tom  Hughes" — 
as  his  honor,  Judge  Hughes,  Q.C.,  is  still  for  all  his  old  friends 
— only  the  most  active  of  fellow-workers,  the  most  genial  of 
companions. 

But  we  were  still  only  feeling  our  way.     To  say  nothing  of 


42  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

our  clerical  fellow-workers,  two  or  three  of  us  laymen  had 
taken  part  in  parochial  work,  and  had  come  into  contact  with 
working  men.  But  not  a  single  one  of  us  knew  any  working 
man  to  whom  he  could  go  as  a  friend.  Yet  meanwhile,  uncon- 
sciously to  ourselves,  we  had  opened  up  a  way  to  what  was 
needed.  Politics  for  the  People  had  had  a  few — a  very  few — 
working  men  readers,  and  two  or  three  working  men  corre- 
spondents. They  were  attracted  by  the  tone  of  the  paper,  and 
yet  distrusted  it.  When  it  failed,  they  recognized  that  it  had 
been  a  genuine  attempt  to  reach  their  class.  One  of  these  men 
was  a  tailor  in  Fetter  Lane,  a  Scotchman,  brought  up  in  the 
narrowest  Calvinism,  but  from  whom  all  faith  had  dropped 
away,  and  who  had  become  a  lecturer  upon  Strauss,  then  the 
leading  infidel  teacher.  A  dear  friend  of  mine,  a  Scripture 
reader  with  whom  I  had  become  connected  in  parochial  work, 
directed  my  attention  to  this  man,  and,  he  having  prepared  the 
way,  I  called  upon  him.  It  was  Walter  Cooper,  who  for  some 
years  did  excellent  work  with  us,  but,  alas,  eventually  went  to 
the  bad  altogether.  Whilst  perfectly  courteous,  he  was  very 
outspoken.  Yet  he  admitted  himself  to  have  been  struck  by  a 
new  tone  in  Politics  for  the  People,  and  was  anxious  to  know 
more  about  the  men  connected  with  it.  I  persuaded  him  to  go 
to  hear  Mr.  Maurice.  He  went,  and  was  at  first  perfectly  be- 
wildered, but  went  again  and  again,  till  he  understood,  and 
then  became  a  regular  attendant.  I  introduced  him  to  Mr. 
Maurice,  and  to  several  other  of  our  friends.  He  brought  one 
or  two  of  his  own  to  Lincoln's  Inn  Chapel.  He  suggested  that 
Mr.  Maurice  should  meet  the  working  men.  This  led  to  a  series 
of  conferences  beginning  in  April,  1849,  which  brought  Mr. 
Maurice  and  his  friends  into  direct  contact  with  all  that  was 
most  thoughtful  and  most  earnest  in  the  London  working  class, 
together  with  a  good  deal  that  was  merely  frothy  and  unreal. 
It  was  clear  after  a  few  months  that  the  questions  which  lay 
nearest  to  the  hearts  of  these  London  working  men  were  no 
longer  political,  but  social  ones.  And  a  powerful  stimulus  in 
this  direction  was  being  afforded  by  the  publication  in  the 
Morning  Chronicle  of  three  series  of  letters  on  labor  and  the 
poor,  by  its  own  commissioners,  which  commenced  while  the 
conferences  were  going  on,  and  were  soon  found  to  contain  the 
most  awful  revelations  as  to  the  condition  of  the  working  class, 
both  in  London  and  in  the  provinces. 


SOCIALISM  43 

That  autumn  I  went  over  to  Paris.  It  was  the  golden  time 
of  the  associations  ouvrieres, — societies  for  productive  coopera- 
tion. I  say  "golden  time"  in  a  moral  sense,  for  if  they  were  no 
longer  persecuted  by  the  government,  as  they  had  been  after  the 
insurrection  of  June,  1848  (although  I  was  assured  that,  with 
scarcely  any  exceptions,  the  men  of  not  one  of  the  associations 
had  descended  into  the  streets),  still  they  were  viewed  with  dis- 
favor by  the  ruling  bourgeoisie.  But  never  before  or  since  have 
I  seen  anything  to  equal  the  zeal,  the  self-devotion,  the  truly 
brotherly  spirit  which  pervaded  these  cooperative  work-shops. 
It  seemed  to  me  that  they  offered  the  best  material  solution  for 
the  immediate  difficulties  of  the  labor  question  in  England  as 
well  as  in  France.  I  told  what  I  had  seen  to  my  friends,  and 
they  were  all  of  opinion  that  funds  should,  if  possible,  be  raised 
for  setting  up  an  association  of  working  men  in  London  on  a 
basis  similar  to  that  adopted  in  Paris.  The  tailoring  trade, 
Walter  Cooper  assured  us,  was  ripe  for  the  experiment.  It  was 
agreed  to  begin  with  this,  he  to  be  manager  of  the  association. 
At  the  same  time,  Mr.  Maurice  took  up  again  an  idea  which  he 
had  already  entertained  when  Politics  for  the  People  was 
started,  that  of  a  series  of  tracts,  which  came  out  as  "Tracts  on 
Christian  Socialism."  And  if  Little  Ormond  Yard  school  had 
given  us  T.  Hughes  for  a  fellow-workers,  the  setting  up  of  a 
cooperative  association  brought  us  in  time  another  most  valuable 
recruit,  Edward  Vansittart  Neale. 

I  have  dwelt  on  these  early  days  of  the  movement  in  order, 
if  possible,  to  bring  out  its  spirit.  One  often  hears  it  said  that 
the  old  Christian  Socialism  aimed  only  at  setting  up  little  asso- 
ciations of  working  men  who  should  carry  on  trade  on  their 
own  account  and  share  the  profits.  Nothing  of  the  kind.  From 
its  earliest  years  the  movement  was  political ;  it  was  educational ; 
it  was  religious ;  I  might  add,  it  was  sanitarian,  for  (not  to 
speak  of  some  excellent  sanitary  articles  in  Politics  for  the 
People, — for  example,  on  the  baking  trade,  by  Dr.  Guy,  who, 
however,  did  not  follow  us  later  on)  in  the  autumn  of  1849  we 
carried  on  a  little  sanitarian  crusade  against  a  particular  plague 
spot  in  Bermondsey,  and  projected  a  Health  League  with  shilling 
subscriptions,  but  of  this  plan  Mr.  Maurice  would  not  hear.  At 
the  very  time  when  we  were  setting  up  our  first  little  association, 
the  volume  of  Fraser's  Magazine  for  1850  opened  with  an  article 
(by  myself)  based  upon  the  Morning  Chronicle  letters  on  labor 


44  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

and  the  poor,  and  under  that  title  (reprinted  in  1852  in  a  series 
of  tracts  by  Christian  Socialists).  In  this  will  be  found  a 
good  deal  that  many  people  think  to  be  novelties  of  the  present 
day.  I  have  heard  the  Rev.  Hugh  Price  Hughes  speak  at  a 
meeting  in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber  of  the  demand  for  a  "living 
wage"  as  a  new  thing.  I  can  only  say  that  it  was  the  claim  of 
the  working  class  before  1850,  and  that  the  article  in  question 
put  forth  the  demand — granted  within  the  last  few  years  to  a  cer- 
tain extent — that  government  contracts  should  be  given  only 
to  "some  fair-dealing  man  who  shall  pay  his  work  people  living 
wages"  (the  singular  "wage"  was  not  then  an  accepted  term). 
If  the  article  recommended  (though  in  other  language)  coopera- 
tion both  in  production  and  in  consumption,  it  warned  its  read- 
ers against  putting  their  trust  in  any  single  panacea;  recom- 
mended within  certain  limits  emigration,  the  revision  of  the 
customs  tariff,  the  finding  of  new  employments  for  women,  re- 
forms in  the  prison  and  workhouse  systems ;  suggested  (what  has 
since  been  carried  out)  government  clothing  workshops;  above 
all,  urged  the  church  to  "put  forth,  all  her  strength  to  grapple 
with  the  hundred-headed  evil";  declared  that  "the  care  of  the 
sick,  the  reformation  of  the  prisoner,  the  government  of  the 
adult  pauper,  the  training  of  the  pauper  child  .  .  .  required 
both  a  special  and  religious  vocation  in  the  individual,  and  the 
support  and  comfort  of  an  organized  fellowship,"  so  that  "we 
must  have  orders  of  nurses,  orders  of  prison  attendants,  orders 
of  workhouse  masters,  workhouse  matrons,  workhouse  teachers, 
perhaps  parish  surgeons."  But  the  article  also  proclaimed  that 
the  remedy  for  social  evils  lay,  not  "in  any  system  or  theory, 
not  in  any  party  cry  or  economical  machinery,  but  in  a  thorough 
change  of  spirit.  'Make  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and  renew 
a  right  spirit  within  me,'  must  be  the  cry  of  this  whole  nation. 
We  must  feel  that  we  are  members  of  one  society,  having  com- 
mon profit  and  common  loss;  members  of  one  church,  many 
members  under  one  Head ;  members — to  use  that  most  wonderful 
saying  of  the  Apostle,  members  one  of  another."  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  all  the  views  thus  expressed  were  shared  by  all  my 
fellow-workers ;  some  of  them  I  may  hold  now  only  in  a  modified 
form.  But  they  fairly  show  what  subjects  were  being  discussed 
amongst  us,  and  prove,  I  think,  that  we  were  not  mere  men  of  a 
hobby,  and  had  not  any  the  slightest  notion  that  cooperative 
productive  associations  were  to  be  a  cure  for  all  social  evils. 


SOCIALISM  45 

But  we  did  think  them,  and  I  do  think  them  now,  the  best 
remedy — however  difficult  of  application — as  yet  devised  against 
the  evils  of  the  competitive  system  in  trade,  the  anti-Chris- 
tian system  of  "every  man  for  himself,  and  devil  take  the 
hindmost." 

Against  that  system  a  ringing  blow  was  struck  by  Kingsley's 
"Cheap  Clothes  and  Nasty,"  which  was  founded  mainly,  like 
the  article  in  Fraser,  on  the  revelations  of  the  Morning  Chron- 
icle. This  came  out  almost  simultaneously  with  the  opening  of 
the  Working  Tailors'  Association,  selling  largely  from  the  first. 
It  was  not  one  of  the  actual  tracts  on  Christian  Socialism,  but 
was  afterwards  reprinted  as  the  second  of  the  tracts  by  Chris- 
tian Socialists.  And  already  since  early  in  1849  (February) 
Kingsley  had  been  at  work  on  another  novel,  at  first  called 
"The  Autobiography  of  a  Cockney  Poet,"  but  eventually  pub- 
lished in  August,  1850,  as  "Alton  Locke,"  and  the  success  of 
which  gave  the  publishers  of  Fraser's  Magazine  courage,  in  the 
following  year,  to  reissue  "Yeast"  as  a  volume. 

To  the  "Tracts  on  Christian  Socialism"  the  title  was  given 
by  Mr.  Maurice  himself,  as  being,  he  wrote,  "the  only  title  which 
will  define  our  object,  and  will  commit  us  at  once  to  the  conflict 
we  must  engage  in  sooner  or  later  with  the  un- Social  Christians 
and  the  un-Christian  Socialists."  The  first  of  these  tracts,  by 
himself,  the  "Dialogue  Between  Somebody  (a  person  of  respect- 
ability) and  Nobody  (the  writer),"  contains  that  broad  expo- 
sition of  Socialism  which  can  never  be  too  often  quoted  against 
any  who  would  force  that  great  word  into  the  narrow  limits  of 
their  own  creed  or  their  own  hate :  "The  watchword  of  the 
Socialist  is  cooperation;  the  watchword  of  the  anti- Socialist  is 
competition.  Any  one  who  recognizes  the  principle  of  coopera- 
tion as  a  stronger  and  truer  principle  than  that  of  competition 
has  a  right  to  the  honor  or  the  disgrace  of  being  called  a 
Socialist."  How  little  we  thought  of  confining  our  Socialism  to 
profit-sharing  associations  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  out  of  the 
eight  tracts  on  Christian  Socialism,  one  (the  third)  is  entitled 
"What  Christian  Socialism  Has  to  Do  With  the  Question  which 
Is  now  Agitating  the  Church"  (referring  to  a  late  privy  council 
decision  on  the  subject  of  baptism)  ;  another  is  a  "Dialogue  be- 
tween A  and  B,  Two  Clergymen,  on  the  Doctrine  of  Circum- 
stances as  It  Affects  Priests  and  People" ;  and  a  third  is  a 
"Clergyman's  Answer  to  the  Question  'On  What  Grounds  can 


46  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

You  Associate  With  Men  Generally  ?' "  whilst  the  subsequent 
series  of  "Tracts  by  Christian  Socialists"  began  with  one  on 
English  history  (all  four  being  by  Mr.  Maurice). 

Early  in  1850,  the  starting  of  the  first  association  of  working 
tailors,  with  funds  advanced  by  ourselves,  having  brought  in 
applications  from  workmen  in  various  other  trades,  the  Society 
for  Promoting  Working  Men's  Associations  (a  name  afterwards 
changed,  owing  to  legislation  which  I  shall  presently  advert  to, 
into  that  of  Association  for  Promoting  Industrial  and  Provi- 
dent Societies)  was  established.  It  was  divided  into  two 
branches:  the  promoters,  represented  by  a  council,  the  second 
of  whose  functions  was  "to  diffuse  the  principles  of  cooperation, 
as  the  practical  application  of  Christianity  to  the  purposes  of 
trade  and  industry";  and  the  associates,  that  is  the  members  of 
the  associations  connected  with  the  society,  represented  by  a 
central  board.  In  November,  1850,  the  Christian  Socialist,  a 
weekly  paper,  was  started,  and  carried  on  till  the  end  of  1851, 
to  be  succeeded  for  six  months  by  the  Journal  of  Association. 

Into  the  story  of  the  early  associations  I  need  not  enter. 
They  all  failed.  The  first  established  one,  that  of  the  tailors, 
lasted  longest,  about  nine  years,  and  was  then  broken  up 
through  the  dishonesty  of  the  manager,  that  same  Walter 
Cooper  whom  I  have  mentioned  as  our  first  working  man  ally,^- 
a  failure  all  the  more  painful  as  he  had  become  somewhat 
prominently  connected  with  the  church,  and  vicar's  churchwarden 
of  All  Saints,  Margaret  Street.  Looking  back,  I  am  not  in  the 
least  surprised  at  such  failures.  We  had  tried  (and  were,  I 
still  consider,  right  in  trying)  cooperation  on  its  more  difficult 
side,  that  of  production  (not  that  cooperation  in  consumption 
and  distribution  was  entirely  neglected,  for  two  or  three  co- 
operative stores  were  established,  and  Vansittart  Neale  set  up  a 
central  agency,  which  lasted  many  years,  and  prefigured  the 
splendid  cooperative  wholesale  societies  of  our  day).  We  tried 
the  experiment  with  men  utterly  new  to  the  thing,  and  for  the 
most  part  what  the  French  would  call  the  dedasses  of  the  labor 
world,  men  of  small  or  no  resources  and  generally  little  skill. 
The  trade-unions — themselves  having  no  legal  recognition — 
looked  for  the  most  part  askance  on  cooperation.  Moreover, 
when  we  started  work,  it  was  virtually  impossible  to  obtain  a 
legal  constitution  for  our  associations,  unless  under  the  then 


SOCIALISM  47 

ruinous  form  of  a  company,  and  that  only  with  unlimited  lia- 
bility. Hence  much  of  our  effort  had  to  be  devoted  to  the  obtain- 
ing such  a  change  of  the  law  as  would  render  cooperation 
legally  practicable.  We  were  able,  fortunately,  to  lay  the  case  of 
the  working  men  fully  before  a  House  of  Commons  committee 
on  the  savings  and  investments  of  the  middle  and  working 
classes,  to  interest  several  M.  P.'s  in  the  matter,  and  eventually  to 
obtain  the  passing  of  the  Industrial  and  Provident  Societies  Act, 
1852,  drawn  by  us,  the  first  of  a  sequence  which  still  continues. 
That  act,  however,  still  withheld  limited  liability  from  coopera- 
tive societies ;  nor  was  this  granted  till  1862,  seven  years  after 
it  has  been  given  to  companies.  And  without  a  limitation  of 
liability,  English  working  men  will  not  associate  together  in  any 
number. 

Again,  the  Christian  Socialist  movement  brought  its  pro- 
moters into  connection  with  trade-unions, — of  all  forms  of  as- 
sociation the  one  still  dearest  to  the  bulk  of  the  skilled  workers 
of  the  United  Kingdom.  For,  if  the  greater  number  of  trade- 
unions,  especially  the  smaller  and  less  educated  ones,  looked 
askance  upon  cooperation,  as  I  have  said,  we  were  sought  after 
by  that  one  which  contains  the  very  elite  of  the  working  class, 
the  Amalgamated  Society  of  Engineers;  and  to  nothing  in  my 
life  do  I  look  back  with  more  satisfaction  than  to  the  endeavors 
I  made — in  conjunction  with  Vansittart  Neale,  T.  Hughes,  the 
present  Marquis  of  Ripon,  and  other  friends — towards  obtaining 
a  fair  hearing  for  them  during  the  great  lockout  of  engineers 
in  1852.  From  the  friendly  relations  then  formed  between  mem- 
bers of  the  educated  classes  and  the  pick  of  the  working  class — 
relations  which  were  extended  and  confirmed  through  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Working  Men's  College — may  be  traced,  I 
believe,  by  direct  filiation,  one  of  the  latest  and  most  promising 
social  experiments  of  our  day,  the  Industrial  Union  of  Employ- 
ers and  Employed,  established  in  June  last ;  and  one  of  the  two 
chairmen  of  sections  of  this  union  was  the  secretary  of  the 
very  society  (the  Amalgamated  Society  of  Engineers)  which 
it  was  the  object  of  the  lockout  of  1852  to  crush  out  of  existence. 

But  even  in  reference  to  cooperation  itself  Christian  Social- 
ism did  not  die  out.  Before  ceasing  to  direct  the  movement, 
our  association  provided  for  itself  a  substitute,  calling  together, 
in  July,  1852,  a  cooperative  conference,  of  delegates  from  co- 


48  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

operative  bodies  throughout  the  country,  by  which  an  executive 
committee  was  appointed,  and  similar  conferences  were  called 
from  year  to  year.  To  this  body  our  association,  in  November, 
1854,  virtually  resigned  the  direction  of  the  movement.  Those 
conferences,  confined  latterly  to  the  societies  of  Lancashire  and 
Yorkshire,  were,  I  believe,  continued  without  break  till  1860, 
when  the  first  cooperative  congress  was  called  in  London,  parent 
of  an  unbroken  annual  series  which  still  continues.  On  the  list 
of  its  convening  committee,  in  1860,  appear  the  names  of  Charles 
Kingsley,  T.  Hughes,  E.  Vansittart  Neale,  my  own,  and  those 
of  three  other  members  of  our  old  body,  besides  those  of  various 
working  men  with  whom  we  had  been  brought  into  contact; 
T.  Hughes  presided  on  the  opening  day.  Later  on,  in  1879,  it 
was  two  old  Christian  Socialists,  T.  Hughes  and  Vansittart 
Neale,  who  were  charged  by  the  Cooperative  Union,  the  outcome 
of  these  congresses,  with  the  drawing  up  of  a  manual  for  co- 
operators.  Scholarships  at  Orient  College  have  been  founded  by 
the  cooperative  body  in  their  two  names,  and  for  many  years 
Vansittart  Neale  held  office  with  unwearied  zeal  and  patience 
as  the  secretary  of  the  Cooperative  Union.  Finally,  at  the  hold- 
ing, in  August  last,  of  an  international  cooperative  congress,  one 
of  the  old  Christian  Socialists  remained  to  be  asked  to  take  the 
chair  on  one  of  the  days  of  meeting,  and  another  to  hold  it  in 
his  place.  The  breath  of  the  older  Christian  Socialism  is  on 
English  cooperation  to  this  day. 

Moreover,  when  our  association  abdicated,  so  far  as  coopera- 
tion was  concerned,  in  favor  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the 
cooperative  conference,  it  did  not  go  out  of  existence ;  its 
energies  were  simply  transferred  in  the  main,  with  help  from 
outside,  to  another  field,  which  it  had  already  opened  up.  For 
a  twelvemonth  we  had  held  classes  in  various  subjects  in  our 
Hall  of  Association,  chiefly,  but  not  exclusively,  for  working 
associates  and  their  families,  and  Mr.  Maurice's  Bible  class  had 
been  transferred  to  the  hall,  and  was  held  on  Sunday  evenings 
instead  of  Saturdays.  These  classes  were  now  expanded  into 
the  Working  Men's  College,  of  which  Mr.  Maurice  became  the 
principal.  This  still  subsists  and  flourished  after  forty-one  years 
of  existence,  and  is  looked  upon  with  singular  affection  by  its 
students.  From  it,  again,  have  grown  other  institutions,  the 
most  interesting  of  which  is  the  South  London  Art  Gallery  and 


SOCIALISM  49 

Library,  established  by  a  most  remarkable  man,  the  first  student 
fellow  of  the  Working  Men's  College,  W.  Rossiter.  The  college, 
moreover,  brought  to  us  as  teachers  men  who,  without  sharing 
our  views  in  religious  matters,  it  may  be,  were  in  turn  brought 
thereby  into  contact  with  the  working  class,  and  learned  to 
understand  it  and  sympathize  with  it;  several  of  them  have 
shown  themselves  its  true  friends.  I  speak  of  such  men  as 
Frederic  Harrison  and  Sir  Godfrey  Lushington.  Certainly,  to 
the  minority  report  of  the  late  Lord  Lichfield,  F.  Harrison,  and 
T.  Hughes,  as  members  of  the  trade-union  commission  ap- 
pointed in  1867,  is  mainly  due  the  trade-union  act  of  1871  and 
all  subsequent  legislation  on  the  subject. 

I  may  seem  to  have  been  dwelling  too  much  on  what  I  may 
call  external  results;  but  the  Christian  Socialist  movement  was, 
above  all  things,  a  leaven,  leavening  the  whole  of  English 
society.  It  is  impossible  to  measure  the  effects  of  Kingsley's 
novels  and  poetry  on  the  generation  which  grew  up  under  their 
influence;  and  by  their  side  came  to  place  themselves  Hughes's 
two  novels,  "Tom  Brown"  (first  published  in  1857)  and  "Tom 
Brown  at  Oxford,"  the  teaching  of  which,  I  believe,  has  gone 
deeper  still.  I  can  only  say  that,  nowadays,  I  find  boys  fresh 
from  school,  girls  from  the  governess's  room,  with  minds  at 
once  better  instructed  and  more  open  on  social  subjects  than 
were  those  of  their  fathers  and  mothers  thirty  or  forty  years 
ago. 

The  name  of  our  master,  Maurice,  may  seem,  in  these  recol- 
lections, to  have  dropped  out  of  sight.  A  man  whose  sensitive- 
ness was  all  but  morbid,  for  many  years  he  kept  out  of  any 
active  connection  with  the  various  movements  directly  springing 
from  the  Christian  Socialist  one ;  not  from  want  of  sympathy, 
which  never  failed  on  his  part,  but  from  fear  of  compromising 
them  by  his  name  and  aid.  But  never  in  his  teaching  did  he 
depart  by  one  hair's  breadth  from  the  principles  which  he  had 
sought  to  lay  down.  I  find  the  whole  spirit  of  Christian  Social- 
ism in  the  last  pages  of  his  last  work,  the  "Lectures  on  Social 
Morality" :  "We  want  for  the  establishment  and  rectification  of 
our  social  morality  not  to  dream  ourselves  into  some  imaginary 
past  or  some  imaginary  future,  but  to  use  that  which  we  have, 
to  believe  our  own  professions,  to  live  as  if  all  we  utter  when 
we  seem  to  be  most  in  earnest  were  not  a  lie.  Then  we  may 


50  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

find  that  the  principle  and  habit  of  self-sacrifice  which  is  ex- 
pressed in  the  most  comprehensive  human  worship  supplies  the 
underground  for  national  equity,  freedom,  courage,  for  the 
courtesies  of  common  intercourse,  the  homely  virtues  and  graces 
which  can  be  brought  under  no  rules,  but  which  constitute  the 
chief  charm  of  life,  and  tend  most  to  abate  its  miseries.  Then 
every  tremendous  struggle  with  ourselves,  whether  we  shall 
degrade  our  fellow-creatures,  men  or  women,  or  live  to  raise 
them, — struggles  to  which  God  is  not  indifferent,  if  we  are, — 
may  issue  in  a  real  belief  that  we  are  members  one  of  another, 
and  that  every  injury  to  one  is  an  injury  to  the  whole  body. 
Then  it  will  be  found  that  refinement  and  grace  are  the  property 
of  no  class,  that  they  may  be  the  inheritance  of  those  who  are 
as  poor  as  Christ  and  his  apostles  were,  because  they  are  human. 
So  will  there  be  discovered  beneath  all  the  polities  of  the  earth, 
sustaining  the  order  of  each  country,  upholding  the  charity  of 
each  household,  a  city  which  has  foundations,  whose  builder  and 
maker  is  God.  It  must  be  for  all  kindreds  and  races ;  therefore, 
with  the  sectarianism  which  rends  humanity  asunder,  with  the 
imperialism  which  would  substitute  for  universal  fellowship  a 
universal  death,  must  it  wage  implacable  war.  Against  these  we 
pray  as  often  as  we  ask  that  God's  will  may  be  done  on  earth  as 
it  is  in  Heaven." 

In  concluding,  I  may  observe  that  I  have  not  dwelt  on  those 
attacks  that  in  the  early  years  of  which  I  have  spoken,  met  us 
from  all  sides,  and  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Maurice  rose  to  bitter 
persecution.  All  parties  in  church  and  state  treated  us  alike  as 
dangerous  madmen.  For  some  years,  at  least,  I  do  not  think 
there  was  any  one  of  us  who  did  not  suffer  more  or  less  in 
his  profession  or  prospects  for  having  dared  to  call  himself  a 
Christian  Socialist ;  and  a  few  there  were  who,  having  put  their 
hand  to  the  plow,  looked  back.  For  myself,  whilst  thanking  God 
for  having  granted  me  to  take  part  in  the  Christian  Socialist 
efforts  of  the  mid-century,  I  can  only  feel  ashamed  that  I  did 
not  do  more  and  do  better. 


SOCIALISM  51 

North  American  Review.     148:447-53.      April,  1889 
Christianity  versus  Socialism.     Rev.  Lyman  Abbott,  D.D. 

"Socialism  means,  or  wishes  to  mean,  cooperation  and  com- 
munity of  interests,  sympathy,  the  giving  to  the  hands  not  so 
large  a  share  as  to  the  brains,  but  a  larger  share  than  hitherto  in 
the  wealth  they  must  combine  to  produce, — means,  in  short,  the 
secret  of  an  orderly  and  benign  reconstruction."  So  says  James 
Russell  Lowell,  in  his  essay  on  "Democracy"  (page  40).  This  is 
what  Christianity  also  means,  or  wishes  to  mean.  How,  then, 
do  they  differ  from  each  other?  This  is  the  question  to  which  I 
propose  in  this  paper  to  give  a  partial  answer.  My  aim  is  not 
to  compare  the  Socialism  of  the  reds,  with  all  its  crude  theories 
and  sometimes  revolutionary  and  even  riotous  spirit,  with  the 
Christianity  of  ecclesiasticism,  with  all  its  ceremonialism  and 
scholastic  tendencies.  The  one  is  as  foreign  to  the  intelligent 
Socialism  of  modern  thinkers  as  the  other  to  the  simplicity  of 
the  method  and  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  My  aim  is  to  take  what  is 
best  and  purest  in  Socialism  with  what  is  best  and  purest  in 
Christianity,  and  compare  them.  And,  in  doing  this,  I  make  no 
secret  of  my  aim,  which  is  to  justify,  after  a  well-considered 
comparison  of  the  two,  the  methods  of  the  Christian  church 
and  the  Christian  ministry,  and  their  refusal  to  abandon  their 
methods  for  the  philosophy  and  the  methods  of  modern  Christless 
Socialism. 

Let  me  frankly  concede,  at  the  outset,  that  the  contrast  here 
suggested  is,  perhaps,  unduly  heightened  by  the  antithesis. 
Christianity  and  Socialism  shade  off  into  each  other;  and  if,  on 
the  one  hand,  modern  Socialism  is  largely  pervaded  by  Chris- 
tianity, it  is  also  true  that  modern  Christianity  is,  in  its  practical 
workings,  rightly  adapted  to  and  modified  by  the  socialistic 
needs  and  movements  of  the  age.  Leaving  this  general  statement 
to  qualify  what  follows,  I  endeavor,  without  repeating  this 
qualification  in  each  paragraph,  to  put  the  methods  of  a  Christ- 
less  and  of  a  Christian  Socialism — or,  in  more  popular  phrase, 
the  methods  of  Christianity  and  Socialism — in  contrast,  for  the 
purpose  of  at  once  interpreting,  and  defending  from  attack  and 
unintelligent  criticism,  the  methods  of  Christianity  in  dealing 
with  socialistic  problems. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  then,  all  varied  forms  of  social  phil- 
anthropy proceed  on  the  assumption  that  the  thing  essential  to 


52  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

be  done  is  to  modify  the  social  organism.  They  proceed  on  the 
assumption  that,  if  the  social  organism  can  be  made  right,  the 
condition  of  mankind  will  be  made  right.  There  are  as  many 
different  sects  in  what  we  call  socialistic  philanthropy  as  there 
are  in  the  Christian  church,  or,  if  not  as  many,  they  are,  at  least, 
as  antagonistic.  One  social  reformer  tells  us  that  we  must 
abolish  the  tariff,  and  then  prices  will  be  lowered  and  wealth  will 
be  distributed ;  another  tells  us  that  we  must  raise  the  tariff,  and 
then  wages  will  be  raised  and  wealth  will  be  distributed.  One 
social  reformer  tells  us  we  must  levy  all  taxes  on  the  land  and 
take  them  off  everything  else ;  another  tells  us  we  must  take 
them  off  the  land  and  levy  them  on  incomes.  One  social  re- 
former tells  us  we  must  increase  the  power  and  extend  the 
functions  of  government ;  another,  that  government  is  a  failure, 
or,  at  best,  a  necessary  evil,  and  that  we  must  reduce  its 
powers  or  abolish  it  altogether.  But  the  high-tariff  man  and  the 
free-trader,  the  land-tax  and  the  income-tax  advocate,  the  state 
socialist  and  the  anarchist,  widely  as  they  differ,  all  agree  in 
this  one  fundamental  doctrine — that  if  we  can  only  make  the 
social  organism  right,  humanity  will  be  well  taken  care  of. 

They  strike  at  the  vice  in  the  organism;  demand  reform  in 
the  organism;  seek  changes  that  can  be  wrought  by  legislation 
in  the  organism.  Jesus  Christ  proceeded  on  a  directly  opposite 
assumption.  He  made  almost  no  attempt  to  change  social  order 
or  the  social  organism.  The  system  of  taxation  that  prevailed 
in  the  Roman  Empire  was  abominably  unjust.  Christ  said  never 
a  word  about  taxation.  Labor  was  not  only  underpaid  and  ill- 
paid,  but,  for  the  most  part,  worked  with  its  hands  in  manacles ; 
but  Christ  said  never  a  word  about  slavery.  If  drinking  and 
drunkenness  were  not  as  bad  in  their  forms  then  as  they  are 
now,  by  reason  of  the  modern  use  of  distilled  liquors,  then 
comparatively  unknown,  drinking  habits  and  animalism,  in  all  its 
forms,  were  worse  in  Greece  than  they  have  ever  been  in  Amer- 
ica; but  Christ  never  levelled  his  shafts  against  the  man  that 
sold  liquor,  or  against  the  liquor  trade,  or  against  the  making 
of  wine.  Phariseeism  was  a  phase  of  a  great  hierarchial  system. 
Christ  did  not  strike  at  the  hiararchy  and  the  system ;  he  struck 
at  the  pharisee,  not  at  the  ism.  He  struck  at  the  injustice,  not 
at  the  form  which  the  injustice  took  on  at  a  particular  era,  in  a 
particular  country,  under  particular  circumstances.  JHe^sowgkt^o 
_cbange.  not  methods,  ^"*  "iffli  He  struck,  not  at  the  outward 


SOCIALISM  53 

clothing  of  the  wrong,  but  at  the  wrong  itself.     ArrnrHinp-ly,  TIP^ 
said  almost  nothing  about  social   pylH  anr1 


dividual  sin^  In  strictness  of  speech,  a  nation  does  not  sin. 
The  individuals  that  make  up  the  nation  are  the  sinners.  Sins 
are  individual,  and  Christ  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that,  if 
we  can  get  rid  of  sin  in  the  individual,  we  shall  get  rid  of 
evil  in  the  state  ;  but  if  we  leave  the  sin  in  the  individual,  all 
social  reform  will  result  only  in  a  change  in  the  form  of  social 
evil. 

Christ  indicated  in  this  respect  the  method  which  the  Chris- 
tian church  has,  with  more  or  less  deviation,  followed  ever  since. 
The  Christian  Church  is  not,  and  does  not  undertake  to  be,  a 
social-reform  organization;  nor  is  the  Christian  minister  a  social 
reformer.  Father  McGlynn  leaves  the  Roman  Catholic  church, 
and  Hugh  O.-  Pentecost  leaves  the  Congregational  church,  and 
they  go  out  into  the  halls  and  say,  Follow  us.  But  we  do  not, 
and  do  not  intend  to,  follow  them.  We  decline  to  turn  aside 
from  our  work  to  debate  the  question  whether  -the  land  tax  or 
income  tax,  free  trade  or  revenue  reform,  State  Socialism  or 
laissez-faire,  are  right  or  wrong,  beneficent  or  maleficent.  Our 
business  is  different.  Our  business  is  to  make  men,  and  trust 
that  out  of  right  manhood  will  grow  right  systems. 

This  radical  difference  is  best  seen  in  a  glance  at  the  pro- 
posals of  the  radical  Socialist.  He  believes  in  manufacture,  not 
in  growth,  of  men.  He  woulH  mb  off  f™m  I*1"  sM»  nil  .lh» 
experience  of  past  history;  then  take  the  slate  and  write  a  new 
.scheme  for  the  industry  of  the  future.  A  man  who  cannot 
organize  his  own  household,  who  cannot  live  in  peace  with  his 
own  wife,  who  cannot  manage  his  own  children,  who  cannot 
earn  money  enough  to  keep  his  toes  from  peeping  through  his 
shoes  or  his  elbows  through  his  coat-sleeves,  is  ready  to  tell  us 
how  we  are  to  organize  the  industry  of  the  world.  But  it  is 
our  Christian  belief  that  social  organisms  are  not  to  be  manu- 
factured. One  cannot  take  a  bit  of  timber  here  and  a  bit  of 
iron  there  and  make  a  new  shelter  for  humanity.  Social  organ- 
ism is  a  growth;  and  the  fundamental  condition  of  growth  is 
personal  manhood,  out  of  which  growth  may  come.  If  is  not 
possible  to  make  a  solid  ship  out  of  rotten  timber.  It  is  the 
business  of  the  forest,  not  to  make  masts  and  keels  and  knees 
and  ships,  but  to  make  trees  ;  when  the  trees  are  made,  then  men 
will  take  them  and  make  of  them  masts  and  keels  and  knees  and 


54  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

ships.  It  is  not  the  work  of  the  mountain  to  turn  the  busy 
machinery.  It  is  the  work  of  the  mountain  to  furnish  the 
springs  and  streams  that  gather  together  into  a  river  which  will 
drive  the  machinery.  It  is  the  work  of  the  Christian  Church 
to  make  the  trees  out  of  which  the  social  ship  shall  be  con- 
structed, to  keep  full  in  men's  hearts  the  spiritual  and  moral  life 
which  shall  drive  aright  all  industries,  all  political  and  social 
organisms  of  the  world's  industry.  The  work  of  the  Christian 
Church  is,  the  work  of  Christ  was,  primarily  individual ;  only 
secondarily  social  and  organic.  Christ's  method  was  based  on 
the  assumption  that,  if  individuals  were  made  right,  society 
^would  "rectify  itj^TT ;  anH  tW  jg  flip  mpthr>H  which  he  has 
bequeathed  to  the  Christian  Church  and  the  Christian  ministry. 
It  is  not  for  the  Church  to  tell  what  justice  demands  in  taxation, 
but  to  develop  such  a  spirit  of  justice  in  the  hearts  of  men  that 
they  will  work  out  that  which  is  just  in  government.  It  is  not 
the  vocation  of  the  minister  to  tell  the  capitalist  what  he  must  do 
in  the  organization  of  his  labor,  nor  to  tell  the  laborer  what  he 
must  do  in  his  treatment  of  the  capitalist.  It  is  the  business  of 
the  Christian  Church  and  the  Christian  ministry  to  inspire  such 
sentiments  of  humanity  and  good-will  in  the  hearts  of  the  chil- 
dren of  men,  such  faith  in  the  Golden  Rule  and  the  brotherhood 
of  humanity,  that  the  capitalist  and  the  laborer  will  find  it  easy 
to  shake  hands  with  each  other  and  go  on  their  way  rejoicing. 

This  is  not  because  Christ  was  indifferent  to  social  evils;  not 
because  the  Church  is  indifferent  to  social  evils,  or  a  defender  of 
the  social  order.  From  the  days  of  Paul  down  to  the  present 
time,  the  true  apostles  and  followers  of  Christ  have  been  men 
that  were  turning  the  world  upside  down;  and  they  will  go 
on  turning  the  world  upside  down  until  it  gets  right  side  up. 
But  the  process  of  revolution  is  one  that  must  be  wrought 
in  the  hearts  of  individual  men.  There  is  no  short  cut  to  the 
millennium  by  a  manufactured  social  order. 

II.  In  the  second  place,  modern  social  philanthropy  proceeds, 
primarily,  in  its  work  of  reform  by  endeavoring  to  rectify  man's 
environment.  It  does  not  work  primarily  upon  the  individual, 
but  upon  society;  nor  upon  his  character,  but  upon  his  circum- 
stances. It  acts  upon  the  philosophy  that  man  is  made  by  his 
environment;  that  his  surroundings  are  the  creator,  and  he  is 
the  creature.  Accordingly,  it  demands  clean  streets,  better  food, 
good  sewerage,  improved  lighting,  improved  tenements,  and  so 
on  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 


SOCIALISM  55 

Now,  this  was  not  Christ's  method.  Christ  dealt  with  men, 
not  with  circumstances.  Pauperism  was  far  more  common  in  the 
first  century  than  it  is  today;  but  Christ  said  nothing  about 
pauperism.  He  did  not  even  suggest  its  abolition.  There  was 
immeasurably  less  regard  paid  to  sanitary  conditions  in  the  first 
century  than  there  is  today.  Christ  did  not  attempt  to  teach  men 
sanitary  and  hygienic  reforms.  This  was  not  wholly  because 
sanitary  science  was  unknown;  for  he  had  less  to  say  about  it 
than  had  Moses,  fourteen  centuries  before.  Modern  serial  phij- 
jmthropv ^proceeds  on  the  assumption  that,  if  you  can  make  the 
environment  right,  the  ^environment  will  make  the  men.  Christ  __ 
proceeded  on  the  assumption  that,  if  YOU  can  make  men  right, 
jlif>  tr^n  ™n11  ^^e.  the  environment:^  Social  reformers  wish  us  to 
abandon  our  spiritual  work,  in  churches,  Sabbath-schools,  and 
missions ;  they  propose  to  us  to  lay  aside  the  Bible,  substitute  a 
primer  on  hygiene,  stop  preaching,  and  go  out  and  clean  the 
streets;  stop  talking  about  morals  and  religion,  and  give  men 
decent  homes  and  good  sewerage ;  get  rid  of  sewage-gas  first 
and  sin  afterwards. 

That,  certainly,  has  not  been  the  way  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  past,  and  will  not  be  its  way  in  the  future.  We  do  not 
disesteem  sanitary  reform,  but  our  way  to  sanitary  reform  is, 
primarily  and  chiefly,  by  the  reform  of  character.  Circumstances 
do  not  make  men;  men  make  circumstances.  Even  the  oyster 
makes  his  own  shell.  Changing  one's  circumstances  does  not 
change  his  character.  The  lie  of  the  lady  in  silk  or  the  gentle- 
man in  broadcloth,  spoken  with  a  smile,  while  standing  on  the 
Wilton  carpet,  is  as  base  a  lie  as  the  lie  of  the  man  in  rags,  with 
a  grin  on  his  face,  while  standing  on  the  sanded  floor.  The 
indulgence  which  eats  with  a  golden  spoon  is  no  whit  better  than 
the  indulgence  which  eats  with  a  wooden  spoon.  The  pig  is  a  pig 
still,  whether  it  roots  in  the  garden  or  wallows  in  the  sty.  It  is 
not  environment  that  makes  men :  men  make  environment.  The 
same  ocean  washes  Ireland  and  England ;  the  same  sun  smiles 
on  them  both;  the  same  beneficent  fogs  and  rains  fall  on  their 
greenswards;  and  the  same  kind  of  green  grass  springs  up  for 
them,  making  verdure  in  the  one  island  as  in  the  other.  Why 
is  Ireland  Ireland,  and  England  England?  Because  one  is  inhab- 
ited by  the  Celt,  and  the  other  by  the  Anglo-Saxon ;  and,  I  may 
add,  because  one  lives  under  the  stimulating  power  of  a  Protes- 
tant faith,  and  the  other  under  the  dwarfing  and  deadening  power 
of  a  Roman  Catholic  ritualism.  It  is  not  the  business  of  min- 


56  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

isters  and  churches  to  make  clean  streets  or  improved  tenements. 
It  is  their  business,  if  they  speak  to  landlords,  to  speak  such  senti- 
ments of  justice  and  truth  that  no  man  that  rents  a  house  shall 
leave  the  miserable  tenement  without  air,  without  water,  without 
sunlight.  It  is  their  business,  if  they  preach  to  the  poor,  to 
preach  such  a  gospel  of  cleanliness  and  order  and  decency  that 
no  man  in  his  poverty  will  consent  to  live  without  these  three 
things — fresh  air,  fresh  water,  God's  sunlight. 

III.  In  the  third  place,  modern  social  philanthropy  proceeds 
on  the  assumption  that,  in  social  reform,  we  are  to  begin  with 
the  lowest  factor  in  man  and  work  up  to  the  higher.  First,  it 
says,  deal  with  the  body,  then  with  the  intellect,  then  with  the 
ethical  nature,  and  finally,  if  there  is  time  and  force  left,  with 
the  spiritual  condition  of  things.  Give  good  food,  good  clothing, 
good  external  conditions.  Build  not  a  church,  but  a  Palace  of 
Delight.  Following  after  these,  give  education,  give  schools  and 
languages ;  let  the  intellect  be  developed.  Then  organize  societies 
for  ethical  culture.  Teach  the  second  table  of  the  law:  Thou 
shalt  not  steal ;  thou  shalt  not  kill ;  thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery. As  for  God  and  immortality  and  Christ  and  theology,  we 
will  talk  about  that  when  we  get  to  it. 

Now,  that  was  not  Christ's  method.  He  did  not  begin  with 
the  bottom  of  man  and  work  up  to  the  top.  He  began  at  the  top 
of  man  and  worked  down  towards  the  bottom.  He  did  not 
attempt  to  lift  men  up  by  a  leverage  applied  from  below:  he 
attempted  to  lift  men  up  by  a  hand  reached  down  from  above. 
Did  he  not  feed  five  thousand  in  the  wilderness?  Yes! — after  he 
had  preached  all  day;  but  he  preached  first  and  fed  afterwards. 
These  four  things  are,  in  Socialism,  placed  in  this  order:  First, 
what  makes  for  the  welfare  of  man's  body;  second,  of  his  intel- 
lect; third,  of  his  ethical  nature;  lastly,  of  his  spiritual  nature. 
But  in  Christ's  order,  spirit  comes  first,  morality  second,  the 
intellect  third,  body  last  of  all.  Christ  assumed,  Christianity 
assumes,  that  in  every  man,  behind  the  shell,  it  may  be,  of  rags 
and  filthiness,  behind  the  more  impenetrable  shell  of  luxurious 
and  selfish  wealth, — in  every  ^ta",  c^™^whfrA,  t^™  is  *  «=»«+;.. 
ment  of  reverence,  nf  IDVP,  nf  Hivinp  manhood:  and  it  is  the 
work  of  the  Christian  Church  and  of  the  Christian  ministry,  as 
throughout  all  ages  it  is  the  work  of  God  himself,  to  brood  the 
soul  until  he  has  kindled  into  life  this  spiritual  nature.  When 
that  spiritual  nature  has  been  kindled  into  life,  it  will  develop 


SOCIALISM  57 

an  ethical  life,  it  will  demand  an  intellectual  education,  it  will 
build  up  for  itself  the  conditions  of  physical  well-being. 

To  sum  up  in  a  sentence,  then,  this  antithesis  between  the 
method  of  Socialism  and  the  method  of  Christianity:  the  church 
has  often,  like  the  priest  and  Levite  in  the  parable,  passed  by  on 
the  other  side,  and  left  wounded  humanity  to  the  care  of  the 
heretic,  while  it  hurried  on  to  the  temple  service  at  Jerusalem. 
For  that  disregard  of  humanity  in  a  pretended  consecration  to 
God,  I  have  no  words  but  of  indignation  and  contempt.  But  in 
our  care  of  humanity  we  adhere,  not  blindly  or  superstitiously, 
but  deliberately  and  with  due  consideration,  to  the  principles  and 
methods  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  rejoice  in  legal,  social,  sanitary 
reform,  and  give  Godspeed  to  all  such  reformers;  but,  in  our 
work  as  churches  and  ministers,  we  propose  to  work  for  the 
rebuilding  of  men  rather  than  for  the  reforming  of  social  organ- 
izations ;  for  the  change  of  character  rather  than  of  environ- 
ment; and  by  appeals  to  men  in  the  order  of  moral  supremacy, 
appealing  first  to  the  dominant  sentiments  of  reverence,  hope, 
faith,  and  love;  second,  to  the  intellectual  and  social  considera- 
tions of  prudence  and  present  well-being;  last  of  all,  to  the  mere 
physical  and  animal  nature  and  its  needs. 


Nation.    48:478.    June  13,  1889 
The  New  Socialism.     C.  B.  Spahr. 

Within  the  past  month  two  journals  have  been  started  in 
Boston,  advocating  step-by-step  national  Socialism.  The  first  of 
these,  the  Nationalist,  numbers  among  its  contributors  men  of  all 
creeds  and  no  creed — including  Thomas  Wentworth  Higginson, 
Rabbi  Solomon  Schindler,  and  the  Rev.  Edward  Everett  Hale. 
The  other,  the  Dawn,  is  avowedly  Christian  in  faith,  and  is 
indeed  a  new  religious  journal,  having  for  its  one  doctrine  the 
essential  identity  of  Christianity  and  Socialism.  Its  contributors 
are  mainly  ministers — members  of  a  society  of  "Christian  Social- 
ists." The  best  known  of  those  writing  for  the  first  issue  is, 
perhaps,  the  Rev.  James  O.  S.  Huntington,  who  for  years  has 
been  at  work  among  the  poor  of  this  city  as  a  salaried  clergyman, 
and  now  enters  the  ranks  of  manual  labor  in  order  completely  to 
identify  himself  with  the  class  for  whom  he  is  working.  In  the 
Dawn  the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  is  made  the  correl- 


58  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

ative  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  In  the  Nationalist  there  is,  of 
course,  no  such  theological  formulation,  but  the  religious  spirit  is 
quite  as  intense.  Here  it  is  "the  religion  of  humanity"  that  is 
preached,  and  the  "better  future"  which  inspires  hope  and  effort 
is  that  which  awaits  "the  heirs  of  time"  when  the  social  revolu- 
tion is  accomplished. 

The  elevation  of  thought  and  sentiment  which  characterizes 
these  two  journals  forbids  their  dismissal  with  a  mere  word  as 
to  the  weakness  of  their  political  program.  Almost  without 
exception,  the  writers  are  Americans,  with  the  best  of  Puritan 
blood.  Quite  without  exception,  they  belong  to  what  they  them- 
selves would  call  "the  privileged  classes."  Theodore  Parker  once 
said  that  the  democracy  that  was  wanted  was  not  that  which 
said,  "I  am  as  good  as  you  are,"  but  that  which  said,  "You  are 
as  good  as  I  am."  In  this  movement  we  have  a  Socialism  which 
is  of  the  latter  type.  Instead  of  an  appeal  to  the  poor  that  "there 
is  no  reason  why  we  who  do  the  hardest  and  most  repulsive  work 
should  receive  the  lowest  pay,"  we  find  the  appeal  to  the  rich 
that  "there  is  no  reason  why  we  who  do  the  lightest  and  most 
attractive  work  should  receive  the  highest  pay."  The  duty  of  the 
rich  to  grant  takes  the  place  of  the  right  of  the  poor  to  seize. 
But  the  fact  that  it  is  granting  and  not  grasping  which  is  urged 
does  not  signify  that  it  is  merely  the  Socialism  of  a  charity 
sermon  that  is  preached.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  German  socialism 
of  the  most  radical  type.  Not  content  with  making  absolute  al- 
truism the  religion  of  the  individual,  it  is  made  the  religion  of  the 
State — a  religion  which  the  State  shall  impose  upon  every  citizen. 

This  identification  of  Christianity  with  State  Socialism  is,  of 
course,  nothing  new.  A  number  of  years  ago,  when  Prince  Bis- 
marck first  broached  his  policy  of  diverting  the  German  masses 
by  the  rattle  of  Socialistic  playthings,  he  replied  to  the  objection, 
"This  is  Socialism,"  by  asserting,  "It  is  Christianity."  Conscien- 
tious, no  doubt,  was  the  assertion;  yet  the  workings  of  the  prin- 
ciple have  not  been  such  as  to  make  any  one  really  in  sympathy 
with  the  masses  unlearn  the  old  lesson,  taught  by  Adam  Smith, 
that  when  the  national  government  interferes  in  industrial  affairs, 
it  always  takes  as  its  counsellors  the  representatives  of  the  richest 
and  most  powerful  interests.  Compulsory  insurance  of  the  work- 
ingmen  has  been  introduced.  One-third  of  the  amount  to  be  paid 
them  in  insurance  is  deducted  directly  from  their  wages ;  another 
third  is  nominally  paid  by  their  employers,  but  in  the  long  run 


SOCIALISM  59 

indirectly  deducted,  with  the  additional  evil  of  increasing  their 
dependence  upon  their  present  masters  by  practically  involving  a 
deferred  payment  of  wages.  The  remaining  third  is  paid  by  the 
government — the  amount  being  raised  by  a  protective  tax  on 
breadstuffs,  which  also  is  paid  by  the  working  classes,  and  yields 
five  dollars  to  the  landlords  where  it  yields  one  to  the  government. 

The  workings  of  State  Socialism  in  our  own  country,  when- 
ever administered  by  the  national  government,  are  similar  in 
character.  Subsidies  have  been  granted  to  railroads  because  of 
the  indirect  benefits  they  conferred  upon  the  farmers,  while  none 
have  ever  been  proposed  for  the  farmers  because  of  the  indirect 
benefits  they  conferred  upon  the  railroads.  The  taxing  of  the 
poorer  classes  in  order  to  pay  the  labor-bill  of  the  richer  is  the 
guiding  principle  of  our  tariff,  but  no  one  ever  thought  of  taxing 
the  richer  in  order  to  pay  the  rent-bill  of  the  poorer.  These 
facts  have  sufficiently  demonstrated  that  the  common  good  as 
understood  by  the  national  government  is  the  good  of  those  who 
are  rich  and  powerful  enough  to  make  their  influence  felt  at 
Washington. 

Yet  it  is  national  Socialism  which  the  Nationalists  and  the 
"Christian  Socialists"  wish  to  promote  in  America.  It  is,  per- 
haps, somewhat  to  the  credit  of  their  judgment,  if  not  of  their 
logic,  that  they  do  not  at  once  attempt  to  make  their  reform 
"planetary."  Nevertheless,  in  advocating  a  national  organization 
for  their  cooperative  commonwealth  they  ignore  the  fact  that  the 
cooperative  principle  has  rarely  been  successfully  applied,  except 
by  the  smallest  organizations,  political  or  industrial,  and  there 
only  when  the  business  management  has  been  easily  understood 
and  closely  watched  by  the  whole  body  of  the  cooperators.  In 
such  cases  we  have  nothing  to  urge  against  the  value  of  the 
principle.  It  is  already  successfully  applied  in  most  departments 
of  public  works  and  in  the  support  of  our  school  system.  It  is 
being  applied  to  the  suppression  of  trades  which  injure  the  com- 
munity instead  of  serving  it.  It  will  doubtless  be  applied  more 
and  more  rigorously  to  the  prevention  of  extortion  on  the  part 
of  combinations  and  natural  monopolies.  Yet  this  principle  of 
combined  resistance  to  anti-social  forces  is  very  different  from 
that  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  German  Socialism.  The  American 
movement  against  monopolies,  natural  and  unnatural,  is  merely 
to  enforce  the  principle  that  the  capital  invested  therein  shall 
exact  as  nearly  as  possible  the  rates  of  interest  which  the  presence 


60  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

of  free  competition  would  establish.  It  is  "dead  rent,"  and  the 
dividends  upon  certificates  representing  merely  the  capitalization 
of  proposed  extortion,  which  cause  the  entire  outcry  against 
Trusts — an  outcry  which  comes  mainly  from  those  who  would 
be  the  last  to  maintain  that  there  is  any  industry  in  which  the 
capital  actually  employed  in  production  is  not  entitled  to  the 
competitive  rate  of  interest.  This  principle  of  competitive  rates 
as  the  measure  of  just  payment  is  the  one  thing  in  "bourgeois 
economy"  which  the  Socialists  repudiate  with  the  greatest  vio- 
lence. Capital,  they  say,  is  entitled  to  no  compensation  whatever 
for  its  services,  and  the  services  rendered  by  labor  are  to  be 
compensated  according  to  the  needs  of  the  laborers. 

The  socialistic  objection  to  the  democratic  doctrine  of  individ- 
ual rights  is  its  selfishness.  To  this  it  is  not  enough  to  reply  that 
the  selfishness  of  seeking  one's  own  good  consistently  with  that 
of  his  neighbors  is  in  bright  contrast  with  the  reckless  egoism 
which  characterizes  protectionist  Socialism.  The  democratic  doc- 
trine of  individual  rights  is  selfish,  but  it  is  only  half  of  the 
democratic  program.  Democracy  quite  as  much  as  Absolutism 
or  Socialism  recognizes  the  promotion  of  the  public  good  as  the 
basis  of  individual  rights  and  the  measure  of  individual  duties.  In 
democracies,  as  nowhere  else,  is  the  spirit  of  devotion  to  the  pub- 
lic good  present,  and  in  democracies  as  nowhere  else  are  the 
contributions  which  the  individual  owes  to  the  public  measured 
by  the  principle  of  equality  of  sacrifice.  It  is  true  that  there  is  at 
present  no  democracy  where  the  principle  is  consistently  carried 
out.  In  our  own  the  necessities  of  the  poor  are  taxed  in  order 
to  increase  the  superfluities  of  the  rich.  But  this  is  not  demo- 
cratic principle.  Wherever  democracy  is  strongest  and  Socialism 
weakest,  as  in  the  local  governments  of  America  and  Switzerland, 
the  duties  of  the  individual  to  the  public  are  sought  to  be  pro- 
portioned to  his  means.  The  extent  of  the  contribution  of  the 
individual  to  the  public  is  measured  by  the  need  of  the  public 
just  as  exactly  as  in  Socialism  the  extent  of  the  contribution  of 
the  public  to  the  individual  is  measured  by  the  needs  of  the 
individual. 

Democracy,  when  logical,  recognizes  the  principle  of  brother- 
hood quite  as  much  as  Socialism,  and  with  much  greater  accuracy 
of  analogy.  It  strives  to  establish  equality  of  opportunities,  not 
equality  of  recompense.  Napoleon  once  said  that  the  French 
Revolution  meant  "la  carriere  ouverte  aux  talents" — a  clear  path- 


SOCIALISM  61 

way  for  talent.  This  is  the  meaning  of  democracy,  and  also  the 
meaning  of  brotherhood.  It  strives  continually  to  make  the  high- 
est mental  and  moral  training  more  accessible  to  all  in  order  that 
each  may  find  his  capacity,  and  then  win  a  place  according  to  his 
efforts  in  the  services  of  the  public.  This  is  also  the  meaning  of 
Christianity.  Wherever  the  church  is  thoroughly  democratized, 
there  its  spiritual  and  intellectual  ministrations  are  made  free. 
In  all  this  there  is  no  departure  from  the  principle  of  individual 
responsibility.  The  true  charity  is  that  which  develops  the  higher 
needs  of  the  recipient,  not  that  which  satisfies  his  lower  needs. 
It  elevates  the  manhood  of  the  younger  brother,  instead  of 
degrading  him  into  a  perpetual  pensioner.  Our  democracy  does 
have  need  to  be  more  large-hearted.  It  must  be  moral  or 
Christian  enough  to  keep  trying  to  lessen  the  contrast  between  the 
degrading  want  of  those  who  have  neither  the  training  nor  the 
character  for  self-support,  and  the  enervating  waste  of  those 
who,  at  the  other  end  of  society,  are  equally  helpless  and  useless. 
Such  publications  as  the  Nationalist  and  the  Dawn  give  evidence 
that  such  will  be  its  spirit.  But  they  do  not  signify  that  there 
will  be  any  abandonment  of  the  lines  of  development  in  the  past 
in  order  to  embrace  the  Socialistic  system,  which  would  annihilate 
individual  responsibility  and  manhood  by  centering  all  rights  and 
duties  in  the  State.  Democracy  will  accept  the  religion  of  altru- 
ism, but  it  will  not  enforce  it  as  a  State  religion. 


MARXIAN  SOCIALISM 

Communist    Manifesto.     Excerpts 
Karl  Mark  and  Frederick  Engels 

Preface 

The  Manifesto  was  published  as  the  platform  of  the  Com- 
munist League,  a  workingmen's  association,  first  exclusively 
German,  later  an  international,  and  under  the  political  condi- 
tions of  the  continent  before  1848,  unavoidably  a  secret  society. 
At  a  congress  of  the  league,  held  in  London  in  November,  1847, 
Marx  and  Engels  were  commissioned  to  prepare  for  publication 
a  complete  theoretical  and  practical  party-program.  Drawn  up 
in  German,  in  January,  1848,  the  manuscript  was  sent  to  the 
printer  in  London  a  few  weeks  before  the  French  revolution 
of  February  24.  A  French  translation  was  brought  out  in  Paris, 
shortly  before  the  insurrection  of  June,  1848.  The  first  English 
translation,  by  Miss  Helen  Macfarlane,  appeared  in  George 
Julian  Harney's  Red  Republican,  London,  1850.  A  Danish  and 
a  Polish  edition  had  also  been  published. 

The  defeat  of  the  Parisian  insurrection  of  June,  1848 — the 
first  great  battle  between  proletariat  and  bourgeoisie — drove 
again  into  the  background,  for  a  time,  the  social  and  political 
aspirations  of  the  European  working  class.  Thenceforth,  the 
struggle  for  supremacy  was  again,  as  it  had  been  before  the 
revolution  of  February,  solely  between  different  sections  of  the 
propertied  class;  the  working  class  was  reduced  to  a  fight  for 
political  elbow-room,  and  to  the  position  of  extreme  wing  of 
the  middle-class  Radicals.  Wherever  independent  proletarian 
movements  continued  to  show  signs  of  life,  they  were  ruthlessly 
hunted  down.  Thus  the  Prussian  police  hunted  out  the  Central 
Board  of  the  Communist  League,  then  located  in  Cologne.  The 
members  were  arrested,  and,  after  eighteen  months'  imprison- 
ment, they  were  tried  in  October,  1852.  This  celebrated 
Cologne  Communist  trial  lasted  from  October  4  till  November 
12;  seven  of  the  prisoners  were  sentenced  to  terms  of  imprison- 
ment in  a  fortress,  varying  from  three  to  six" 'years.  Immediately 


64  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

after  the  sentence  the  league  was  formally  dissolved  by  the 
remaining  members.  As  to  the  Manifesto,  it  seemed  thence- 
forth to  be  doomed  to  oblivion. 

When  the  European  working  class  had  recovered  sufficient 
strength  for  another  attack  on  the  ruling  classes,  the  Interna- 
tional Working  Men's  Association  sprang  up.  But  this  associ- 
ation, formed  with  the  express  aim  of  welding  into  one  body 
the  whole  militant  proletariat  of  Europe  and  America,  could 
not  at  once  proclaim  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Manifesto. 
The  international  was  bound  to  have  a  program  broad  enough 
to  be  acceptable  to  the  English  trades'  unions,  to  the  followers 
of  Proudhon  in  France,  Belgium,  Italy  and  Spain,  and  to  the 
Lassalleans1  in  Germany.  Marx,  who  drew  up  this  program 
to  the  satisfaction  of  all  parties,  entirely  trusted  to  the  intel- 
lectual development  of  the  working  class,  which  was  sure  to 
result  from  combined  action  and  mutual  discussion.  The  very 
events  and  vicissitudes  of  the  struggle  against  capital,  the 
defeats  even  more  than  the  victories,  could  not  help  bringing 
home  to  men's  minds  the  insufficiency  of  their  various  favorite 
nostrums,  and  preparing  the  way  for  a  more  complete  insight 
into  the  true  conditions  of  working-class  emancipation.  And 
Marx  was  right.  The  International,  on  its  breaking  up  in  1874, 
left  the  workers  quite  different  men  from  what  it  had  found 
them  in  1864.  Proudhonism  in  France,  Lasalleanism  in  Germany 
were  dying  out,  and  even  the  conservative  English  trades'  unions, 
though  most  of  them  had  long  since  severed  their  connection 
with  the  International,  were  gradually  advancing  towards  that 
point  at  which,  last  year  at  Swansea,  their  president  could  say 
in  their  name,  "Continental  Socialism  has  lost  its  terrors  for  us." 
In  fact,  the  principles  of  the  "Manifesto"  had  made  considerable 
headway  among  the  working  men  of  all  countries. 

The  Manifesto  itself  thus  came  to  the  front  again.  The 
German  text  had  been,  since  1850,  reprinted  several  times  in 
Switzerland,  England  and  America.  In  1872,  it  was  translated 
into  English  in  New  York,  where  the  translation  was  published 
in  Woodhull  and  Claflin's  Weekly.  From  this  English  version, 
a  French  one  was  made  in  Le  Socialiste  of  New  York.  Since 
then  at  least  two  more  English  translations,  more  or  less  muti- 

1  Lassalle  personally,  to  us,  always  acknowledged  himself  to  be  a  disciple 
of  Marx,  and,  as  such,  stood  on  the  ground  of  the  Manifesto.  But  in 
his  public  agitation,  1860-64,  he  did  not  go  beyond  demanding  cooperative 
workshops  supported  by  state  credit. 


SOCIALISM  65 

lated,  have  been  brought  out  in  America,  and  one  of  them  has 
been  reprinted  in  England.  The  first  Russian  translation,  made 
by  Bakounine,  was  published  at  Herzen's  Kolokol  office  in 
Geneva,  about  1863 ;  a  second  one,  by  the  heroic  Vera  Zasulitch, 
also  in  Geneva,  1882.  A  new  Danish  edition  is  to  be  found  in 
"Socialdenmokratisk  Bibliothek,"  Copenhagen,  1885 ;  a  fresh 
French  translation  in  Le  Socialiste,  Paris,  1886.  From  this 
latter  a  Spanish  version  was  prepared  and  published  in  Madrid, 
1886.  The  German  reprints  are  not  to  be  counted,  there  have 
been  twelve  altogether  at  the  least.  An  Armenian  translation, 
which  was  to  be  published  in  Constantinople  some  months  ago, 
did  not  see  the  light,  I  am  told,  because  the  publisher  was  afraid 
of  bringing  out  a  book  with  the  name  of  Marx  on  it,  while  the 
translator  declined  to  call  it  his  own  production.  Of  further 
translations  into  other  languages  I  have  heard,  but  have  not  seen 
them.  Thus  the  history  of  the  Manifesto  reflects,  to  a  great 
extent,  the  history  of  the  modern  working-class  movement;  at 
present  it  is  undoubtedly  the  most  widespread,  the  most  inter- 
national production  of  all  Socialist  literature,  the  common  plat- 
form acknowledged  by  millions  of  working  men  from  Siberia  to 
California. 

Yet,  when  it  was  written,  we  could  not  have  called  it  a 
Socialist  manifesto.  By  Socialists,  in  1847,  were  understood, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  adherents  of  the  various  Utopian  systems : 
Owenites  in  England,  Fourierists  in  France,  both  of  them  already 
reduced  to  the  position  of  mere  sects,  and  gradually  dying  out; 
on  the  other  hand,  the  most  multifarious  social  quacks,  who, 
by  all  manners  of  tinkering,  professed  to  redress,  without  any 
danger  to  capital  and  profit,  all  sorts  of  social  grievances,  in 
both  cases  men  outside  the  working  class  movement,  and  looking 
rather  to  the  "educated"  classes  for  support.  Whatever  portion 
of  the  working  class  had  become  convinced  of  the  insufficiency 
of  mere  political  revolutions,  and  had  proclaimed  the  necessity 
of  a  total  social  change,  that  portion,  then,  called  itself  Com- 
munist. It  was  a  crude,  rough-hewn,  purely  instinctive  sort  of 
Communism;  still,  it  touched  the  cardinal  point  and  was  power- 
ful enough  amongst  the  working  class  to  produce  the  Utopian 
Communism,  in  France,  of  Cabet,  and  in  Germany  of  Weitling. 
Thus  Socialism  was,  in  1847,  a  middle-class  movement,  Com- 
munism a  working  class  movement  Socialism  was,  on  the  con- 
tinent at  least,  "respectable" ;  Communism  was  the  very  opposite. 


66  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

And  as  our  notion,  from  the  very  beginning,  was  that  "the 
emancipation  of  the  working  class  must  be  the  act  of  the 
working  class  itself,"  there  could  be  no  doubt  as  to  which  of 
the  two  names  we  must  take.  Moreover,  we  have,  ever  since, 
been  far  from  repudiating  it. 

The  Manifesto  being  our  joint  production,  I  consider  myself 
bound  to  state  that  the  fundamental  proposition  which  forms 
its  nucleus,  belongs  to  Marx.  That  proposition  is:  that  in 
every  historical  epoch,  the  prevailing  mode  of  economic  pro- 
duction and  exchange,  and  the  social  organization  necessarily 
following  from  it,  form  the  basis  upon  which  is  built  up,  and 
from  which  alone  can  be  explained,  the  political  and  intellectual 
history  of  that  epoch ;  that  consequently  the  whole  history  of 
mankind  (since  the  dissolution  of  primitive  tribal  society,  hold- 
ing land  in  common  ownership)  has  been  a  history  of  class 
struggles,  contests  between  exploiting  and  exploited,  ruling  and 
oppressed  classes ;  that  the  history  of  these  class  struggles  forms 
a  series  of  evolutions  in  which,  nowadays,  a  stage  has  been 
reached  where  the  exploited  and  oppressed  class — the  proletariat 
— cannot  attain  its  emancipation  from  the  sway  of  the  exploiting 
and  ruling  class — the  bourgeoisie — without,  at  the  same  time, 
and  once  and  for  all,  emancipating  society  at  large  from  all 
exploitation,  oppression,  class-distinctions  and  class  struggles. 

This  proposition  which,  in  my  opinion,  is  destined  to  do  for 
history  what  Darwin's  theory  has  done  for  biology,  we,  both 
of  us,  had  been  gradually  approaching  for  some  years  before 
1845.  How  far  I  had  independently  progressed  towards  it,  is 
best  shown  by  my  "Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in  Eng- 
land."1 But  when  I  again  met  Marx  at  Brussels,  in  spring, 
1845,  he  had  it  ready  worked  out,  and  put  it  before  me,  in  terms 
almost  as  clear  as  those  in  which  I  have  stated  it  here. 

From  our  joint  preface  to  the  German  edition  of  1872,  I 
quote  the  following: 

"However  much  the  state  of  things  may  have  altered  during 
the  last  twenty-five  years,  the  general  principles  laid  down  in 
this  Manifesto,  are,  on  the  whole,  as  correct  today  as  ever. 
Here  and  there  some  detail  might  be  improved.  The  practical 
application  of  the  principles  will  depend,  as  the  Manifesto  itself 
states,  everywhere  and  at  all  times,  on  the  historical  conditions 

1  "The  Condition  of  the  Working  Class  in  England  in  1844."  By  Fred- 
erick Engels.  Translated  by  Florence  K.  Wischnewetzky.  London,  Swan, 
Sonnenschein  &  Co. 


SOCIALISM  67 

for  the  time  being  existing,  and,  for  that  reason,  no  special 
stress  is  laid  on  the  revolutionary  measures  proposed  at  the 
end  of  Section  II.  That  passage  would,  in  many  respects,  be 
very  differently  worded  today.  In  view  of  the  gigantic  strides 
of  modern  industry  since  1848,  and  of  the  accompanying  im- 
proved and  extended  organization  of  the  working-class,  in  view 
of  the  practical  experience  gained,  first  in  the  February  revolu- 
tion, and  then,  still  more,  in  the  Paris  Commune,  where  the 
proletariat  for  the  first  time  held  political  power  for  two  whole 
months,  this  program  has  in  some  details  become  antiquated. 
One  thing  especially  was  proved  by  the  Commune,  viz.,  that 
'the  working-class  cannot  simply  lay  hold  of  the  ready-made 
State  machinery,  and  wield  it  for  its  own  purposes.'  (See  The 
Civil  War  in  France;  Address  of  the  General  Council  of  the 
International  Working-men's  Association,'  Chicago,  Charles  H. 
Kerr  &  Co.,  where  this  point  is  further  developed).  Further, 
it  is  self-evident,  that  the  criticism  of  Socialist  literature  is 
deficient  in  relation  to  the  present  time,  because  it  comes  down 
only  to  1847;  also,  that  the  remarks  on  the  relation  of  the 
Communists  to  the  various  opposition-parties  (Section  IV), 
although  in  principle  still  correct,  yet  in  practice  are  antiquated, 
because  the  political  situation  has  been  entirely  changed,  and 
the  progress  of  history  has  swept  from  off  the  earth  the  greater 
portion  of  the  political  parties  there  enumerated. 

"But  then,  the  Manifesto  has  become  a  historical  document 
which  we  have  no  longer  any  right  to  alter." 

FREDERICK  ENGELS. 

London,  January  30,  1888. 

Manifesto 

A  spectre  is  haunting  Europe — the  spectre  of  Communism. 
All  the  powers  of  old  Europe  have  entered  into  a  holy  alliance 
to  exorcise  this  spectre ;  Pope  and  Czar,  Metternich  and  Guizot, 
French  Radicals  and  German  police-spies. 

Where  is  the  party  in  opposition  that  has  not  been  decried 
as  communistic  by  its  opponents  in  power?  Where  the  Oppo- 
sition that  has  not  hurled  back  the  branding  reproach  of 
Communism,  against  the  more  advanced  opposition  parties,  as 
well  as  against  its  reactionary  adversaries? 

Two  things  result  from  this  fact. 


68  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

I.  Communism   is   already   acknowledged   by   all    European 
Powers  to  be  itself  a  Power. 

II.  It  is  high  time  that  Communists  should  openly,  in  the 
face  of  the  whole  world,  publish  their  views,  their  aims,  their 
tendencies,    and    meet    this    nursery    tale    of    the    Spectre    of 
Communism  with  a  Manifesto  of  the  party  itself. 

To  this  end,  Communists  of  various  nationalities  have  assem- 
bled in  London,  and  sketched  the  following  manifesto,  to  be 
published  in  the  English,  French,  German,  Italian,  Flemish  and 
Danish  languages. 

I.      BOURGEOIS    AND    PROLETARIANS1 

The  history  of  all  hitherto  existing  society2  is  the  history 
of  class  struggles. 

Freeman  and  slave,  patrician  and  plebeian,  lord  and  serf, 
guild-master3  and  journeyman,  in  a  word,  oppressor  and 
oppressed,  stood  in  constant  opposition  to  one  another,  carried 
on  an  uninterrupted,  now  hidden,  now  open  fight,  a  fight  that 
each  time  ended,  either  in  a  revolutionary  re-constitution  of 
society  at  large,  or  in  the  common  ruin  of  the  contending  classes. 

In  the  earlier  epochs  of  history,  we  find  almost  everywhere 
a  complicated  arrangement  of  society  into  various  orders,  a 
manifold  graduation  of  social  rank.  In  ancient  Rome  we  have 
patricians,  knights,  plebeians,  slaves;  in  the  middle  ages,  feudal 
lords,  vassals,  guild-masters,  journeymen,  apprentices,  serfs; 
in  almost  all  of  these  classes,  again,  subordinate  gradations. 

The  modern  bourgeois  society  that  has  sprouted  from  the 
ruins  of  feudal  society,  has  not  done  away  with  class  antagon- 

1  By  bourgeoisie  is  meant  the  class  of  modern  capitalists,  owners  of  the 
means   of  social   production   and  employers   of   wage-labor.      By  proletariat, 
the  class  of  modern  wage-laborers  who,  having  no  means  of  production  of 
their  own,  are  reduced  to  selling  their  labor-power  in  order  to  live. 

2  That  is,   all  written  history.     In   1847,  the  pre-history  of  society,   the 
social    organization    existing    previous    to    recorded    history,    was    all    but 
unknown.      Since   then,   Haxthausen   discovered   common   ownership   of  land 
in    Russia,    Maurer   proved  it   to   be   the   social    foundation   from  which    all 
Teutonic  races  started  in  history,  and  by  and  by  village  communities  were 
found  to  be,  or  to  have  been,  the  primitive  form  of  society  everywhere  from 
India   to   Ireland.      The    inner    organization   of    this    primitive    Communistic 
society  was  laid  bare,  in  its  typical  form,   by   Morgan's  crowning  discovery 
of  the  true  nature  of  the  gens  and  its  relation  to  the  tribe.     With  the  disso- 
lution of  these  primeval  communities  society  begins  to  be  differentiated  into 
separate  and  finally  antagonistic  classes.     I  have   attempted  to  retrace  this 
process  of  dissolution  in  "The  Origin  of  the  Family,  Private  Property  and 
the  State."     (Chicago,  Charles  H.  Kerr  &  Co.) 

3  Guild-master,   that  is  a  full  member  of  a  guild,  a  master  within,   not 
a  head   of,   a   guild. 


SOCIALISM  69 

isms.  It  has  but  established  new  classes,  new  conditions  of 
oppression,  new  forms  of  struggle  in  place  of  the  old  ones. 

Our  epoch,  the  epoch  of  the  bourgeoisie,  possesses,  however, 
this  distinctive  feature ;  it  has  simplified  the  class  antagonisms. 
Society  as  a  whole  is  more  and  more  splitting  up  into  two  great 
hostile  camps,  into  two  great  classes  directly  facing  each  other: 
Bourgeoisie  and  Proletariat. 

From  the  serfs  of  the  middle  ages  sprang  the  chartered 
burghers  of  the  earliest  towns.  From  these  burgesses  the  first 
elements  of  the  bourgeoisie  were  developed. 

The  discovery  of  America,  the  rounding  of  the  Cape,  opened 
up  fresh  ground  for  the  rising  bourgeoisie.  The  East-Indian 
and  Chinese  markets,  the  colonization  of  America,  trade  with  the 
colonies,  the  increase  in  the  means  of  exchange  and  in  com- 
modities generally,  gave  to  commerce,  to  navigation,  to  industry, 
an  impulse  never  before  known,  and  thereby,  to  the  revolutionary 
element  in  the  tottering  feudal  society,  a  rapid  development. 

The  feudal  system  of  industry,  under  which  industrial  produc- 
tion was  monopolized  by  close  guilds,  now  no  longer  sufficed  for 
the  growing  wants  of  the  new  markets.  The  manufacturing 
system  took  its  place.  The  guild-masters  were  pushed  on  one 
side  by  the  manufacturing  middle-class;  division  of  labor 
between  the  different  corporate  guilds  vanished  in  the  face  of 
division  of  labor  in  each  single  workshop. 

Meantime  the  markets  kept  ever  growing,  the  demand,  ever 
rising.  Even  manufacture  no  longer  sufficed.  Thereupon,  steam 
and  machinery  revolutionized  industrial  production.  The  place 
of  manufacture  was  taken  by  the  giant,  Modern  Industry,  the 
place  of  the  industrial  middle-class,  by  industrial  millionaires, 
the  leaders  of  whole  industrial  armies,  the  modern  bourgeois. 

Modern  industry  has  established  the  world-market,  for  which 
the  discovery  of  America  paved  the  way.  This  market  has  given 
an  immense  development  to  commerce,  to  navigation,  to  com- 
munication by  land.  This  development  has,  in  its  turn,  reacted 
on  the  extension  of  industry ;  and  in  proportion  as  industry, 
commerce,  navigation,  railways  extended,  in  the  same  proportion 
the  bourgeoisie  developed,  increased  its  capital,  and  pushed  into 
the  background  every  class  handed  down  from  the  Middle  Ages. 

We  see,  therefore,  how  the  modern  bourgeoisie  is  itself  the 
product  of  a  long  course  of  development,  of  a  series  of  revolu- 
tions in  the  modes  of  production  and  of  exchange. 


70  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Each  step  in  the  development  of  the  bourgeoisie  was  accom- 
panied by  a  corresponding  political  advance  of  that  class.  An 
oppressed  class  under  the  sway  of  the  feudal  nobility,  an  armed 
and  self-governing  association  in  the  mediaeval  commune,1  here 
independent  urban  republic  (as  in  Italy  and  Germany),  there 
taxable  "third  estate"  of  the  monarchy  (as  in  France),  after- 
wards, in  the  period  of  manufacture  proper,  serving  either  the 
semi-feudal  or  the  absolute  monarchy  as  a  counterpoise  against 
the  nobility,  and,  in  fact,  corner  stone  of  the  great  monarchies 
in  general,  the  bourgeoisie  has  at  last,  since  the  establishment  of 
Modern  Industry  and  of  the  world-market,  conquered  for  itself, 
in  the  modern  representative  State,  exclusive  political  sway.  The 
executive  of  the  modern  State  is  but  a  committee  for  managing 
the  common  affairs  of  the  whole  bourgeoisie. 

The  bourgeoisie,  historically,  has  played  a  most  revolutionary 
part. 

The  bourgeoisie,  wherever  it  has  got  the  upper  hand,  has 
put  an  end  to  all  feudal,  patriarchal,  idyllic  relations.  It  has 
pitilessly  torn  asunder  the  motley  feudal  ties  that  bound  man  to 
his  "natural  superiors,"  and  has  left  remaining  no  other  nexus 
between  man  and  man  than  naked  self-interest,  than  callous 
"cash  payment."  It  has  drowned  the  most  heavenly  ecstasies 
of  religious  fervor,  of  chivalrous  enthusiasm,  of  philistine  senti- 
mentalism,  in  the  icy  water  of  egotistical  calculation.  It  has 
resolved  personal  worth  into  exchange  value,  and  in  place  of 
the  numberless  indefeasable  chartered  freedoms,  has  set  up  that 
single,  unconscionable  freedom — Free  Trade.  In  one  word,  for 
exploitation,  veiled  by  religious  and  political  illusions,  it  has 
substituted  naked,  shameless,  direct,  brutal  exploitation. 

The  bourgeoisie  has  stripped  of  its  halo  every  occupation 
hitherto  honored  and  looked  up  to  with  reverent  awe.  It  has 
converted  the  physician,  the  lawyer,  the  priest,  the  poet,  the  man 
of  science,  into  its  paid  wage-laborers. 

The  bourgeoisie  has  torn  away  from  the  family  its  sentimental 
veil,  and  has  reduced  the  family  relation  to  a  mere  money 
relation. 

The  bourgeoisie  has  disclosed  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the 

1  "Commune"  was  the  name  taken,  in  France,  by  the  nascent  towns 
even  before  they  had  conquered  from  their  feudal  lords  and  masters, 
local  self-government  and  political  rights  as  "the  Third  Estate."  Gen- 
erally speaking,  for  the  economical  development  of  the  bourgeoisie,  England 
is  here  taken  as  the  typical  country,  for  its  political  development,  France. 


SOCIALISM  71 

brutal  display  of  vigor  in  the  Middle  Ages,  which  Reactionists 
so  much  admire,  found  its  fitting  complement  in  the  most  sloth- 
ful indolence.  It  has  been  the  first  to  show  what  man's  activity 
can  bring  about.  It  has  accomplished  wonders  far  surpassing 
Egyptian  pyramids,  Roman  aqueducts,  and  Gothic  cathedrals;  it 
has  conducted  expeditions  that  put  in  the  shade  all  former 
Exoduses  of  nations  and  crusades. 

The  bourgeoisie  cannot  exist  without  constantly  revolu- 
tionizing the  instruments  of  production,  and  thereby  the  rela- 
tions of  production,  and  with  them  the  whole  relations  of 
society.  Conservation  of  the  old  modes  of  production  in  unal- 
tered form,  was,  on  the  contrary,  the  first  condition  of  existence 
for  all  earlier  industrial  classes.  Constant  revolutionizing  of 
production,  uninterrupted  disturbance  of  all  social  conditions, 
everlasting  uncertainty  and  agitation  distinguish  the  bourgeois 
epoch  from  all  earlier  ones.  All  fixed,  fast-frozen  relations, 
with  their  train  of  ancient  and  venerable  prejudices  and  opinions, 
are  swept  away,  all  new-formed  ones  become  antiquated  before 
they  can  ossify.  All  that  is  solid  melts  into  air,  all  that  is 
holy  is  profaned,  and  man  is  at  last  compelled  to  face  with  sober 
senses,  his  real  conditions  of  life,  and  his  relations  with  his  kind. 

The  need  of  a  constantly  expanding  market  for  its  products 
chases  the  bourgeoisie  over  the  whole  surface  of  the  globe.  It 
must  nestle  everywhere,  settle  everywhere,  establish  connections 
everywhere. 

The  bourgeoisie  has  through  its  exploitation  of  the  world- 
market  given  a  cosmopolitan  character  to  production  and  con- 
sumption in  every  country.  To  the  great  chagrin  of  Reaction- 
ists, it  has  drawn  from  under  the  feet  of  industry  the  national 
ground  on  which  it  stood.  All  old-established  national  industries 
have  been  destroyed  or  are  daily  being  destroyed.  They  are 
dislodged  by  new  industries,  whose  introduction  becomes  a  life 
and  death  question  for  all  civilized  nations,  by  industries  that 
no  longer  work  up  indigenous  raw  material,  but  raw  material 
drawn  from  the  remotest  zones;  industries  whose  products  are 
consumed,  not  only  at  home,  but  in  every  quarter  of  the  globe. 
In  place  of  the  old  wants,  satisfied  by  the  productions  of  the 
country,  we  find  new  wants,  requiring  for  their  satisfaction  the 
products  of  distant  lands  and  climes.  In  place  of  the  old  local 
and  national  seclusion  and  self-sufficiency,  we  have  intercourse 
in  every  direction,  universal  inter-dependence  of  nations.  And 


72  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

as  in  material,  so  also  in  intellectual  production.  The  intellectual 
creations  of  individual  nations  become  common  property.  Na- 
tional one-sidedness  and  narrow-mindedness  become  more  and 
more  impossible,  and  from  the  numerous  national  and  local 
literatures  there  arises  a  world-literature. 

The  bourgeoisie,  by  the  rapid  improvement  of  all  instruments 
of  production,  by  the  immensely  facilitated  means  of  communi- 
cation, draws  all,  even  the  most  barbarian,  nations  into  civiliza- 
tion. The  cheap  prices  of  its  commodities  are  the  heavy  artillery 
with  which  it  batters  down  all  Chinese  walls,  with  which  it  forces 
the  barbarians'  intensely  obstinate  hatred  of  foreigners  to  capi- 
tulate. It  compels  all  nations,  on  pain  of  extinction,  to  adopt 
the  bourgeois  mode  of  production;  it  compels  them  to  introduce 
what  it  calls  civilization  into  their  midst,  i.  e.,  to  become  bour- 
geois themselves.  In  a  word,  it  creates  a  world  after  its  own 
image. 

The  bourgeoisie  has  subjected  the  country  to  the  rule  of  the 
towns.  It  has  created  enormous  cities,  has  greatly  increased  the 
urban  population  as  compared  with  the  rural,  and  has  thus 
rescued  a  considerable  part  of  the  population  from  the  idiocy 
of  rural  life.  Just  as  it  has  made  the  country  dependent  on 
the  towns,  so  it  has  made  barbarian  and  semi-barbarian  coun- 
tries dependent  on  the  civilized  ones,  nations  of  peasants  on 
nations  of  bourgeois,  the  East  on  the  West. 

The  bourgeoisie  keeps  more  and  more  doing  away  with  the 
scattered  state  of  the  population,  of  the  means  of  production, 
and  of  property.  It  has  agglomerated  population,  centralized 
means  of  production,  and  has  concentrated  property  in  a  few 
hands.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  was  political  cen- 
tralization. Independent,  or  but  loosely  connected  provinces, 
with  separate  interests,  laws,  governments  and  systems  of 
taxation,  became  lumped  together  in  one  nation,  with  one 
government,  one  code  of  laws,  one  national  class-interest,  one 
frontier  and  one  customs-tariff. 

The  bourgeoisie,  during  its  rule  of  scarce  one  hundred  years, 
has  created  more  massive  and  more  colossal  productive  forces 
than  have  all  preceding  generations  together.  Subjection  of 
Nature's  forces  to  man,  machinery,  application  of  chemistry  to 
industry  and  agriculture,  steam-navigation,  railways,  electric 
telegraphs,  clearing  of  whole  continents  for  cultivation,  canali- 
zation of  rivers,  whole  populations  conjured  out  of  the  ground 


SOCIALISM  73 

— what  earlier  century  had  even  a  presentiment  that  such  pro- 
ductive forces  slumbered  in  the  lap  of  social  labor? 

We  see  then:  the  means  of  production  and  of  exchange  on 
whose  foundation  the  bourgeoisie  built  itself  up,  were  generated 
in  feudal  society.  At  a  certain  stage  in  the  development  of  these 
means  of  production  and  of  exchange,  the  conditions  under 
which  feudal  society  produced  and  exchanged,  the  feudal  organi- 
zation of  agriculture  and  manufacturing  industry,  in  one  word, 
the  feudal  relations  of  property  became  no  longer  compatible 
with  the  already  developed  productive  forces ;  they  became  so 
many  fetters.  They  had  to  burst  asunder;  they  were  burst 
asunder. 

Into  their  places  stepped  free  competition,  accompanied  by  a 
social  and  political  constitution  adapted  to  it,  and  by  the 
economical  and  political  sway  of  the  bourgeois  class. 

A  similar  movement  is  going  on  before  our  own  eyes.  Mod- 
ern bourgeois  society  with  its  relations  of  production,  of  ex- 
change and  of  property,  a  society  that  has  conjured  up  such 
gigantic  means  of  production  and  of  exchange,  is  like  the 
sorcerer,  who  is  no  longer  able  to  control  the  powers  of  the 
nether  world  whom  he  has  called  up  by  his  spells.  For  many  a 
decade  past  the  history  of  industry  and  commerce  is  but  the 
history  of  the  revolt  of  modern  productive  forces  against  modern 
conditions  of  production,  against  the  property  relations  that  are 
the  conditions  for  the  existence  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  of  its 
rule.  It  is  enough  to  mention  the  commercial  crises  that  by 
their  periodical  return  put  on  its  trial,  each  time  more  threaten- 
ingly, the  existence  of  the  entire  bourgeois  society.  In  these 
crises  a  great  part  not  only  of  the  existing  products,  but  also  of 
the  previously  created  productive  forces,  are  periodically  de- 
stroyed. In  these  crises  there  breaks  out  an  epidemic  that,  in 
all  earlier  epochs,  would  have  seemed  an  absurdity — the  epidemic 
of  over-production.  Society  suddenly  finds  itself  put  back  into 
a  state  of  momentary  barbarism;  it  appears  as  if  a  famine,  a 
universal  war  of  devastation  had  cut  off  the  supply  of  every 
means  of  subsistence ;  industry  and  commerce  seem  to  be 
destroyed;  and  why.  Because  there  is  too  much  civilization,  too 
much  means  of  subsistence,  too  much  industry,  too  much  com- 
merce. The  productive  forces  at  the  disposal  of  society  no 
longer  tend  to  further  the  development  of  the  conditions  of 
bourgeois  property;  on  the  contrary,  they  have  become  too 


74  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

powerful  for  these  conditions,  by  which  they  are  fettered,  and 
so  soon  as  they  overcome  these  fetters,  they  bring  disorder  into 
the  whole  of  bourgeois  society,  endanger  the  existence  of  bour- 
geois property.  The  conditions  of  bourgeois  society  are  too 
narrow  to  comprise  the  wealth  created  by  them.  And  how  does 
the  bourgeoisie  get  over  these  crises?  On  the  one  hand  by 
enforced  destruction  of  a  mass  of  productive  forces;  on  the 
other,  by  the  conquest  of  new  markets,  and  by  the  more  thorough 
exploitation  of  the  old  ones.  That  is  to  say,  by  paving  the  way 
for  more  extensive  and  more  destructive  crises,  and  by  dimin- 
ishing the  means  whereby  crises  are  prevented. 

The  weapons  with  which  the  bourgeoisie  felled  feudalism 
to  the  ground  are  now  turned  against  the  bourgeoisie  itself. 

But  not  only  has  the  bourgeoisie  forged  the  weapons  that 
bring  death  to  itself;  it  has  also  called  into  existence  the  men 
who  are  to  wield  those  weapons — the  modern  working-class — 
the  proletarians. 

In  proportion  as  the  bourgeoisie,  i.  e.  capital,  is  developed, 
in  the  same  proportion  is  the  proletariat,  the  modern  working- 
class,  developed,  a  class  of  laborers,  who  live  only  so  long  as 
they  find  work,  and  who  find  work  only  so  long  as  their  labor 
increases  capital.  These  laborers,  who  must  sell  themselves 
piecemeal,  are  a  commodity,  like  every  other  article  of  commerce, 
and  are  consequently  exposed  to  all  the  vicissitudes  of  compe- 
tition, to  all  the  fluctuations  of  the  market. 

Owing  to  the  extensive  use  of  machinery  and  to  division 
of  labor,  the  work  of  the  proletarians  has  lost  all  individual 
character,  and,  consequently,  all  charm  for  the  workman.  He 
becomes  an  appendage  of  the  machine,  and  it  is  only  the  most 
simple,  most  monotonous,  and  most  easily  acquired  knack  that 
is  required  of  him.  Hence,  the  cost  of  production  of  a  work- 
man is  restricted,  almost  entirely,  to  the  means  of  subsistence 
that  he  requires  for  his  maintenance,  and  for  the  propagation 
of  his  race.  But  the  price  of  a  commodity,  and  also  of  labor, 
is  equal  to  its  cost  of  production.  In  proportion,  therefore,  as 
the  repulsiveness  of  the  work  increases,  the  wage  decreases. 
Nay  more,  in  proportion  as  the  use  of  machinery  and  division 
of  labor  increases,  in  the  same  proportion  the  burden  of  toil  also 
increases,  whether  by  prolongation  of  the  working  hours,  by 
increase  of  the  work  exacted  in  a  given  time,  or  by  increased 
speed  of  the  machinery,  etc. 

Modern  industry  has  converted  the  little  workshop  of  the 


SOCIALISM  75 

patriarchal  master  into  the  great  factory  of  the  industrial 
capitalist.  Masses  of  laborers,  crowded  into  the  factory,  are 
organized  like  soldiers.  As  privates  of  the  industrial  army  they 
are  placed  under  the  command  of  a  perfect  hierarchy  of  officers 
and  sergeants.  Not  only  are  they  the  slaves  of  the  bourgeois 
class,  and  of  the  bourgeois  State,  they  are  daily  and  hourly 
enslaved  by  the  machine,  by  the  over-looker,  and,  above  all,  by 
the  individual  bourgeois  manufacturer  himself.  The  more  openly 
this  despotism  proclaims  gain  to  be  its  end  and  aim,  the  more 
petty,  the  more  hateful  and  the  more  embittering  it  is. 

The  less  the  skill  and  exertion  or  strength  implied  in  manual 
labor,  in  other  words,  the  more  modern  industry  becomes 
developed,  the  more  is  the  labor  of  men  superseded  by  that  of 
women.  Differences  of  age  and  sex  have  no  longer  any  dis- 
tinctive social  validity  for  the  working  class.  All  are  instru- 
ments of  labor,  more  or  less  expensive  to  use,  according  to  their 
age  and  sex. 

No  sooner  is  the  exploitation  of  the  laborer  by  the  manu- 
facturer, so  far  at  an  end,  that  he  receives  his  wages  in  cash, 
than  he  is  set  upon  by  the  other  -portions  of  the  bourgeoisie, 
the  landlord,  the  shopkeeper,  the  pawnbroker,  etc. 

The  lower  strata  of  the  middle  class — the  small  tradespeople, 
shopkeepers,  and  retired  tradesmen  generally,  the  handicrafts- 
men and  peasants — all  these  sink  gradually  into  the  proletariat, 
partly  because  their  diminutive  capital  does  not  suffice  for  the 
scale  on  which  Modern  Industry  is  carried  on,  and  is  swamped 
in  the  competition  with  the  large  capitalists,  partly  because  their 
specialized  skill  is  rendered  worthless  by  new  methods  of  pro- 
duction. Thus  the  proletariat  is  recruited  from  all  classes  of 
the  population. 

The  proletariat  goes  through  various  stages  of  development. 
With  its  birth  begins  its  struggle  with  the  bourgeoisie.  At  first 
the  contest  is  carried  on  by  individual  laborers,  then  by  the 
workpeople  of  a  factory,  then  by  the  operatives  of  one  trade,  in 
one  locality,  against  the  individual  bourgeois  who  directly 
exploits  them.  They  direct  their  attacks  not  against  the  bour- 
geois conditions  of  production,  but  against  the  instruments  of 
production  themselves;  they  destroy  imported  wares  that  com- 
pete with  their  labor,  they  smash  to  pieces  machinery,  they  set 
factories  ablaze,  they  seek  to  restore  by  force  the  vanished 
status  of  the  workman  of  the  middle  ages. 

At  this   stage  the   laborers   still   form   an   incoherent   mass 


76  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

scattered  over  the  whole  country,  and  broken  up  by  their  mutual 
competition.  If  anywhere  they  unite  to  form  more  compact 
bodies,  this  is  not  yet  the  consequence  of  their  own  active  union, 
but  of  the  union  of  the  bourgeoisie,  which  class,  in  order  to 
attain  its  own  political  ends,  is  compelled  to  set  the  whole 
proletariat  in  motion,  and  is  moreover  yet,  for  a  time,  able  to  do 
so.  At  this  stage,  therefore,  the  proletarians  do  not  fight  their 
enemies,  but  the  enemies  of  their  enemies,  the  remnants  of 
absolute  monarchy,  the  landowners,  the  non-industrial  bourgeois, 
the  petty  bourgeoisie.  Thus  the  whole  historical  movement  is 
concentrated  in  the  hands  of  the  bourgeoisie;  every  victory  so 
obtained  is  a  victory  for  the  bourgeoisie. 

But  with  the  development  of  industry  the  proletariat  not  only 
increases  in  number,  it  becomes  concentrated  in  greater  masses, 
its  strength  grows,  and  it  feels  that  strength  more.  The  various 
interests  and  conditions  of  life  within  the  ranks  of  the  prole- 
tariat are  more  and  more  equalized,  in  proportion  as  machinery 
obliterates  all  distinctions  of  labor,  and  nearly  everywhere 
reduces  wages  to  the  same  low  level.  The  growing  competition 
among  the  bourgeois,  and  the  resulting  commercial  crises,  make 
the  wages  of  the  workers  ever  more  fluctuating.  The  unceasing 
improvement  of  machinery,  ever  more  rapidly  developing,  makes 
their  livelihood  more  and  more  precarious ;  the  collisions  between 
individual  workmen  and  individual  bourgeois  take  more  and 
more  the  character  of  collisions  between  two  classes.  There- 
upon the  workers  begin  to  form  combinations  (Trades'  Unions) 
against  the  bourgeois;  they  club  together  in  order  to  keep  up 
the  rate  of  wages ;  they  found  permanent  associations  in  order 
to  make  provision  beforehand  for  these  occasional  revolts. 
Here  and  there  the  contest  breaks  out  into  riots. 

Now  and  then  the  workers  are  victorious,  but  only  for  a 
time.  The  real  fruit  of  their  battles  lies,  not  in  the  immediate 
result,  but  in  the  ever  expanding  union  of  the  workers.  This 
union  is  helped  on  by  the  improved  means  of  communication 
that  are  created  by  modern  industry,  and  that  place  the  workers 
of  different  localities  in  contact  with  one  another.  It  was  just 
this  contact  that  was  needed  to  centralize  the  numerous  local 
struggles,  all  of  the  same  character,  into  one  national  struggle 
between  classes.  But  every  class  struggle  is  a  political  struggle. 
And  that  union,  to  attain  which  the  burghers  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  with  their  miserable  highways,  required  centuries, 


:  SOCIALISM  77 

the  modern  proletarians,  thanks  to  railways,  achieve  in  a  few 
years. 

This  organization  of  the  proletarians  into  a  class,  and  con- 
sequently into  a  political  party,  is  continually  being  upset  again 
by  the  competition  between  the  workers  themselves.  But  it 
ever  rises  up  again,  stronger,  firmer,  mightier.  It  compels 
legislative  recognition  of  particular  interests  of  the  workers, 
by  taking  advantage  of  the  division  among  the  bourgeoisie 
itself.  Thus  the  ten-hour  bill  in  England  was  carried. 

Altogether  collisions  between  the  classes  of  the  old  society 
further,  in  many  ways,  the  course  of  development  of  the  prole- 
tariat. The  bourgeoisie  finds  itself  involved  in  a  constant  battle. 
At  first  with  the  aristocracy;  later  on,  with  those  portions  of 
the  bourgeoisie  itself,  whose  interests  have  become  antagonistic 
to  the  progress  of  industry ;  at  all  times,  with  the  bourgeoisie 
of  foreign  countries.  In  all  these  battles  it  sees  itself  compelled 
to  appeal  to  the  proletariat,  to  ask  for  its  help,  and  thus,  to 
drag  it  into  the  political  arena.  The  bourgeoisie  itself,  there- 
fore, supplies  the  proletariat  with  its  own  elements  of  political 
and  general  education,  in  other  words,  it  furnishes  the  prole- 
tariat with  weapons  for  fighting  the  bourgeoisie. 

Further,  as  we  have  already  seen,  entire  sections  of  the 
ruling  classes  are,  by  the  advance  of  industry,  precipitated  into 
the  proletariat,  or  are  at  least  threatened  in  their  conditions  of 
existence.  These  also  supply  the  proletariat  with  fresh  elements 
of  enlightenment  and  progress. 

Finally,  in  times  when  the  class-struggle  nears  the  decisive 
hour,  the  process  of  dissolution  going  on  within  the  ruling 
class,  in  fact,  within  the  whole  range  of  old  society,  assumes 
such  a  violent,  glaring  character,  that  a  small  section  of  the 
ruling  class  cuts  itself  adrift,  and  joins  the  revolutionary  class, 
the  class  that  holds  the  future  in  its  hands.  Just  as,  therefore, 
at  an  earlier  period,  a  section  of  the  nobility  went  over  to  the 
bourgeoisie,  so  now  a  portion  of  the  bourgeoisie  goes  over  to 
the  proletariat,  and  in  particular,  a  portion  of  the  bourgeois 
ideologists,  who  have  raised  themselves  to  the  level  of  compre- 
hending theoretically  the  historical  movements  as  a  whole. 

Of  all  the  classes  that  stand  face  to  face  with  the  bourgeoisie 
today,  the  proletariat  alone  is  a  really  revolutionary  class.  The 
other  classes  decay  and  finally  disappear  in  the  face  of  modern 
industry;  the  proletariat  is  its  special  and  essential  product. 


78  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  lower  middle-class,  the  small  manufacturer,  the  shop- 
keeper, the  artisan,  the  peasant,  all  these  fight  against  the  bour- 
geoisie, to  save  from  extinction  their  existence  as  fractions  of 
the  middle  class.  They  are,  therefore,  not  revolutionary,  but 
conservative.  Nay  more,  they  are  reactionary,  for  they  try  to 
roll  back  the  wheel  of  history.  If  by  chance  they  are  revolu- 
tionary, they  are  so  only  in  view  of  their  impending  transfer 
into  the  proletariat,  they  thus  defend  not  their  present,  but  their 
future  interests,  they  desert  their  own  standpoint  to  place 
themselves  at  that  of  the  proletariat. 

The  "dangerous  class,"  the  social  scum,  that  passively  rotting 
mass  thrown  off  by  the  lowest  layers  of  old  society,  may,  here 
and  there,  be  swept  into  the  movement  by  a  proletarian  revolu- 
tion ;  its  conditions  of  life,  however,  prepare  it  far  more  for 
the  part  of  a  bribed  tool  of  reactionary  intrigue. 

In  the  conditions  of  the  proletariat,  those  of  old  society 
at  large  are  already  virtually  swamped.  The  proletarian  is 
without  property;  his  relation  to  his  wife  and  children  has  no 
longer  anything  in  common  with  the  bourgeois  family  relations ; 
modern  industrial  labor,  modern  subjection  to  capital,  the  same 
in  England  as  in  France,  in  America  as  in  Germany,  has  stripped 
him  of  every  trace  of  national  character.  Law,  morality,  religion, 
are  to  him  so  many  bourgeois  prejudices,  behind  which  lurk  in 
ambush  just  as  many  bourgeois  interests. 

All  the  preceding  classes  that  got  the  upper  hand,  sought  to 
fortify  their  already  acquired  status  by  subjecting  society  at 
large  to  their  conditions  of  appropriation.  The  proletarians 
cannot  become  masters  of  the  productive  forces  of  society, 
except  by  abolishing  their  own  previous  mode  of  appropriation, 
and  thereby  also  every  other  previous  mode  of  appropriation. 
They  have  nothing  of  their  own  to  secure  and  to  fortify;  their 
mission  is  to  destroy  all  previous  securities  for,  and  insurances 
of,  individual  property. 

All  previous  historical  movements  were  movements  of 
minorities,  or  in  the  interest  of  minorities.  The  proletarian 
movement  is  the  self-conscious,  independent  movement  of  the 
immense  majority,  in  the  interest  of  the  immense  majority.  The 
proletariat,  the  lowest  stratum  of  our  present  society,  cannot 
stir,  cannot  raise  itself  up,  without  the  whole  superincumbent 
strata  of  official  society  being  sprung  into  the  air. 

Though  not  in  substance,  yet  in  form,  the  struggle  of  the 


SOCIALISM  79 

proletariat  with  the  bourgeoisie  is  at  first  a  national  struggle. 
The  proletariat  of  each  country  must,  of  course,  first  of  all 
settle  matters  with  its  own  bourgeoisie. 

In  depicting  the  most  general  phases  of  the  development  of 
the  proletariat,  we  traced  the  more  or  less  veiled  civil  war,  raging 
within  existing  society,  up  to  the  point  where  that  war  breaks 
out  into  open  revolution,  and  where  the  violent  overthrow  of 
the  bourgeoisie,  lays  the  foundation  for  the  sway  of  the  prole- 
tariat. 

Hitherto,  every  form  of  society  has  been  based,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  on  the  antagonism  of  oppressing  and  oppressed 
classes.  But  in  order  to  oppress  a  class,  certain  conditions  must 
be  assured  to  it  under  which  it  can,  at  least,  continue  its  slavish 
existence.  The  serf,  in  the  period  of  serfdom,  raised  himself 
to  membership  in  the  commune,  just  as  the  petty  bourgeois, 
under  the  yoke  of  feudal  absolutism,  managed  to  develop  into  a 
bourgeois.  The  modern  laborer,  on  the  contrary,  instead  of 
rising  with  the  progress  of  industry,  sinks  deeper  and  deeper 
below  the  conditions  of  existence  of  his  own  class.  He  becomes 
a  pauper,  and  pauperism  develops  more  rapidly  than  population 
and  wealth.  And  here  it  becomes  evident,  that  the  bourgeoisie 
is  unfit  any  longer  to  be  the  ruling  class  in  society,  and  to  impose 
its  conditions  of  existence  upon  society  as  an  over-riding  law. 
It  is  unfit  to  rule,  because  it  is  incompetent  to  assure  an  existence 
to  its  slave  within  his  slavery,  because  it  cannot  help  letting  him 
sink  into  such  a  state  that  it  has  to  feed  him,  instead  of  being 
fed  by  him.  Society  can  no  longer  live  under  this  bourgeoisie, 
in  other  words,  its  existence  is  no  longer  compatible  with  society. 

The  essential  condition  for  the  existence,  and  for  the  sway  of 
the  bourgeois  class,  is  the  formation  and  augmentation  of  capital ; 
the  condition  for  capital  is  wage-labor.  Wage-labor  rests  exclu- 
sively on  competition  between  the  laborers.  The  advance  of 
industry,  whose  involuntary  promoter  is  the  bourgeoisie,  replaces 
the  isolation  of  the  laborers,  due  to  competition,  by  their  invol- 
untary combination,  due  to  association.  The  development  of 
Modern  Industry,  therefore,  cuts  from  under  its  feet  the  very 
foundation  on  which  the  bourgeoisie  produces  and  appropriates 
products.  What  the  bourgeoisie  therefore  produces,  above  all, 
are  its  own  grave-diggers.  Its  fall  and  the  victory  of  the 
proletariat  are  equally  inevitable. 


8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

American  Journal  of  Sociology.    16:21-40.    July,  1910 

Influence  of  Karl  Marx  on  Contemporary  Socialism.  John  Spargo 

For  many  years  the  words  "Socialism"  and  "Marxism"  have 
been  practically  synonyms.  There  could  be  no  ampler  proof 
of  the  greatness  of  Karl  Marx  than  this  simple  fact.  Over  a 
large  part  of  the  old  world  today  Socialism  is  the  dominant 
political  issue,  and  in  the  parliamentary  bodies  of  several  nations 
its  leaders  are  conspicuous  for  their  ability  no  less  than  for  their 
earnestness,  devotion,  and  courage.  Throughout  the  world  the 
movement  has  a  voting  strength  of  nearly  ten  millions,  repre- 
senting, probably,  at  least  five  times  as  many  human  beings. 

It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  great  and  important  differences 
exist  among  those  who  call  themselves  .Socialists.  However 
much  they  may  have  in  common,  it  is  obvious  that  M.  Jaures,  the 
eloquent  and  scholarly  French  Socialist,  and  Mr.  Hyndman,  the 
equally  eloquent  and  scholarly  English  Socialist,  hold  very  differ- 
ent views  concerning  the  program  essential  to  the  attainment  of 
the  Socialist  goal,  if  not  as  to  the  goal  itself. 

Both  these  men  are  pure  "intellectuals."  Although  they  are 
great  leaders  in  a  proletarian  movement,  neither  of  them  has  had 
to  experience  the  proletarian  struggle.  But  if  we  take  Socialists 
who  are  equally  typical  proletarians  we  shall  find  exactly  the 
same  divergence  of  thought  and  method.  Keir  Hardie,  the  Brit- 
ish Socialist,  and  Eugene  V.  Debs,  the  American  Socialist,  both 
belong  to  this  class.  Each  came  to  the  Socialist  movement 
through  his  trade-union  experience.  Yet,  despite  the  apparent 
similarity  of  their  evolution  as  socialists,  the  two  leaders  repre- 
sent opposing  poles  of  socialist  policy  and  thought. 

Such  obvious  facts  as  these  have  caused  many  critics,  sym- 
pathetic and  otherwise,  to  attempt  a  classification  of  Socialists. 
Even  within  the  movement  itself,  crude  efforts  are  made  in  this 
direction.  The  Socialist  press  teems  with  references  to  arbi- 
trarily arranged  groupings,  indicated  by  such  terms  as  "impos- 
sibilists,"  "opportunists,"  "intellectuals,"  "proletarians,"  and  so 
on.  Such  groupings  have  some  value  in  that  they  describe,  how- 
ever vaguely,  some  characteristics  which  roughly  differentiate 
various  phases  of  contemporary  Socialism.  Their  arbitrary  char- 
acter should  not  be  forgotten,  however,  for  a  single  moment.  He 
who  trusts  them  too  completely  will  be  utterly  misled.  The 
"opportunist"  of  today  may  tomorrow  be  found  taking  a  position 


SOCIALISM  81 

that  places  him  among  the  "impossibilists,"  and  the  most  vocifer- 
ous attack  upon  the  "intellectuals"  is  likely  to  come  from  an 
intellectual,  much  to  the  amusement  of  the  proletarians  in  the 
movement. 

It  is  quite  remarkable  that  practically  all  Socialists,  whether 
they  be  opportunists  or  impossibilists,  proletarians  or  intellec- 
tuals, or  even  anti-intellectuals,  claim  to  be  "Marxists."  The 
English  Socialist  who  works  with  the  trade  unionist,  through  the 
Labor  party,  claims  to  be  a  pure  Marxist.  The  same  claim  is 
made  by  the  impatient  "syndicalist"  of  the  Latin  countries,  with 
his  faith  in  the  mass  strike  and  his  ill-concealed  disdain  for 
parliamentary  action.  In  practically  all  Socialist  factional  dis- 
cussions Marx  is  the  prophet  of  all  the  factions. 

This  identity  of  Marxism  and  Socialism  has  long  been  recog- 
nized as  one  of  the  most  striking  facts  in  the  whole  range  of 
Socialist  phenomena.  Recently,  however,  there  has  been  much 
talk  of  the  waning  influence  of  Marx  upon  contemporary  Social- 
ist thought  and  action.  We  have  been  assured,  both  from  within 
and  without  the  Socialist  ranks,  that  the  teachings  of  Marx  are 
going  out  of  fashion,  being  rapidly  and  more  or  less  openly 
abandoned.  One  lady  has,  indeed,  written  a  book  about  "The 
New  Socialism,"  assuring  us  that  "Marx  called  up  a  swathed  and 
terrifying  figure,  in  which  the  world  sees  the  dread  specter  of 
revolution,"  whereas  the  "new"  Socialists  are  devoting  themselves 
to  the  task  of  stripping  away  the  disguise,  and  unveiling  "the 
kindly  features  of  a  radical  and  comprehensive  social  reform." 

The  New  York  chapter  of  the  Intercollegiate  Socialist  Society 
has  announced  as  one  of  its  study  topics  the  question,  "Are  the 
teachings  of  Karl  Marx  being  abandoned  by  present-day  Social- 
ists?" and  it  is  to  that  question  I  desire  to  address  myself  here. 

As  a  biographer  of  Marx,  it  has  been  my  special  task,  during 
more  than  a  dozen  years,  to  try  to  understand  the  man.  It  has 
become  my  habit  to  view  the  developments  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment throughout  the  world  from  what  I  believe  to  be  his  point 
of  view ;  to  interpret  his  writing  by  what  I  know  of  his  life ; 
to  bring  all  that  I  know  of  his  life  and  his  intimate  conversation 
and  correspondence  with  friends  to  my  aid  in  studying  his 
formally  stated  theories  as  they  appear  on  the  printed  page. 
Whatever  disadvantages  such  methods  may  have  are  more  than 
outweighed,  in  my  judgment,  by  the  numerous  and  obvious 
advantages. 


82  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

As  to  the  question  itself,  I  feel  strongly  that  neither  an  unqual- 
ified negative  nor  an  unqualified  affirmative  reply  is  possible. 
My  belief  is  that  the  Socialist  movement  of  the  present  day  is 
both  breaking  away  from  and  drawing  closer  to  the  teachings  of 
the  great  German  revolutionist.  Recent  criticism  has  compelled 
all  thoughtful  and  sincere  Socialists  to  admit  some  defects  in  the 
Marxian  theory,  and  to  recognize  the  necessity  of  a  readjustment 
of  their  theoretical  position,  and  of  their  policies  so  far  as  they 
have  rested  upon  the  mistaken  theoretical  premises.  But,  for  all 
that,  the  unmistakable  tendency  of  present-day  Socialism  is 
toward  a  closer  adherence  to  the  essential  and  fundamental 
teachings  of  Marx,  not  away  from  them.  Paradoxical  as  this 
statement  may  seem,  a  careful  and  candid  study  of  the  life  of 
Marx  in  connection  with  recent  developments  in  the  international 
Socialist  movement  will  reveal  its  truth. 

"As  for  me,  I  am  no  'Marxist,'  I  am  glad  to  say,"  was  a  say- 
ing frequent  upon  the  lips  of  Marx.  With  the  words  went  that 
half-sneering  expression  with  which  his  best  portraits  have  made 
us  familiar.  If  we  can  fathom  the  meaning  of  the  cryptic  and 
paradoxical  utterance,  it  may  assist  us  very  materially  in  our 
attempt  to  find  a  satisfactory  answer  to  our  question.  Who, 
then,  were  the  "Marxists"  thus  scornfully  repudiated  by  Marx, 
and  what  were  the  reasons  for  the  repudiation  ? 

During  his  lifetime,  as  now,  there  were  many  disciples  of 
Marx  who  regarded  his  theoretical  work  as  being  his  greatest 
achievement,  and  his  most  important  contribution  to  the  cause  of 
the  proletariat.  He  was  to  them  primarily  a  political  economist. 
They  spoke  of  his  great  work,  "Das  Kapital,"  as  the  "Bible  of 
the  proletariat,"  and  as  a  Bible  they  regarded  it.  With  a  passion 
which  can  only  be  adequately  described  as  religious,  tens  of 
thousands  of  working-men  laboriously  read  and  studied  that 
difficult  work.  It  was  to  them  an  "impregnable  rock  of  Holy 
Scripture."  Those  who  could  not  comprehend  the  work  as  a 
whole  satisfied  themselves  with  a  few  memorized  passages. 
Like  all  Bibles,  it  became  a  book  of  texts,  much  quoted  but 
little  read. 

Naturally,  those  who  regarded  the  book  as  a  Bible  made  it 
the  basis  of  a  creed.  Naturally,  also,  their  creed  became  the  basis 
of  a  sect.  Doctrinal  tests  decided  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  men 
and  women  to  enter  the  Socialist  fellowship  and  to  be  reckoned 
with  the  elect.  Just  as  religious  sectarianism  based  upon  creedal 
and  doctrinal  tests  has  barred  many  a  rare  and  beautiful  religious 


SOCIALISM  83 

spirit  from  the  church,  while  it  placed  the  word  "orthodox"  as 
a  stamp  of  approval  upon  many  an  unworthy  and  irreligious 
spirit,  so  this  sectarian  "Marxism"  imposed  its  stamp  of  "ortho- 
dox" and  "unorthodox"  to  determine  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of 
men  and  women  to  be  called  Socialists.  Many  who  believed  in 
the  whole  program  of  Socialism,  who  saw  the  necessity  of  a 
working-class  political  party  to  bring  about  the  realization  of 
that  program,  and  were  willing  to  work  with  and  through  such  a 
party  for  the  immediate  interests  of  the  working  class,  and,  ulti- 
mately, the  collective  ownership  of  the  social  productive  forces, 
were  denied  the  right  to  call  themselves  Socialists,  and  a  place  in 
the  Socialist  ranks,  simply  because  they  could  not  subscribe  to  all 
the  economic  and  philosophical  teachings  of  Marx. 

In  every  country  Socialism  has  had  to  outgrow  this  dog- 
matism and  sectarianism  before  attaining  political  importance. 
In  almost  every  country  the  movement  had  its  inception  in  a 
theoretical  propaganda.  A  few  earnest  souls  devoted  themselves 
to  the  task  of  studying  the  works  of  a  Fourier  or  a  Marx  and 
getting  others  to  study  them.  To  fully  understand  the  master's 
teachings  naturally  became  the  chief  ambition  of  such  disciples. 
To  the  average  person,  the  zeal  and  devotion  of  such  men  and 
women  is  incomprehensible.  I  have  known  a  working  man,  of 
scant  education,  to  walk  a  distance  of  ten  miles  every  Sunday 
morning  for  years,  no  matter  what  the  weather,  to  study  with  a 
fellow  Socialist  the  first  volume  of  "Das  Kapital."  After  seven 
or  eight  hours  of  labored  study,  the  patient  student  would  under- 
take the  homeward  journey  of  ten  miles  supremely  happy  if  he 
had  mastered  a  single  new  passage. 

Of  course,  his  joy  was  due  to  something  other  than  mere 
intellectual  satisfaction  and  triumph.  It  rested  upon  a  much 
nobler  passion  than  that.  Mastery  of  the  difficult  and  abstract 
text  was  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  a  means  to  an  end  of  great 
grandeur.  Only  through  a  knowledge  of  Marx  could  the  prole- 
tariat ever  be  saved.  The  psychology  of  this  attitude  is  not 
difficult  to  understand.  It  is  precisely  that  of  theological  sec- 
tarianism :  Marx  is  the  only  true  prophet,  his  book  the  one  and 
only  true  gospel,  and  every  question  is  to  be  decided  by  an 
appeal  to  its  text. 

It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say  that  Karl  Marx  was  too  great 
and  wise  a  man  not  to  recognize  the  folly  of  the  attitude  here 
indicated,  and  the  positive  perils  to  the  movement  which  it 
involved.  He  certainly  did  not  deny  the  importance  of  correct 


84  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

thinking,  or  underrate  it.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  apt  to  expect 
and  demand  too  much  in  the  way  of  theoretical  knowledge  from 
those  engaged  in  the  social  movement.  But  he  knew  that  the 
great  mass  of  the  workers  could  never  be  expected  to  fully 
understand  such  philosophical  doctrines  as  the  materialistic  con- 
ception of  history,  or  theories  of  political  economy  such  as 
surplus  value.  He  was  not  foolish  enough  to  believe  that  a 
great  movement  could  be  founded  upon  a  correct  understanding 
of  such  subtle  and  difficult  theories.  At  most  he  believed  that 
the  movement  could  be  guided  by  such  knowledge.  In  other 
words,  while  he  expected  and  desired  that  the  leaders  of  the 
movement  should  possess  a  thorough  theoretical  training,  he  did 
not  expect  anything  of  the  kind  from  the  rank  and  file. 

When  his  overzealous  and  impatient  disciples  sought  to  push 
the  importance  of  theoretical  training  beyond  this  limit,  and  to 
insist  upon  making  the  acceptance  and  understanding  of  his 
theories  a  test  of  membership,  Marx  was  impatient.  It  was  in 
such  moods  that  he  expressed  his  gratitude  that  he  was  not  a 
"Marxist." 

There  was  another  reason  for  the  cryptic  and  paradoxical 
epigram.  Like  all  great  thinkers  upon  whose  work  a  definite 
school  of  thought  has  been  founded,  Marx  has  suffered  greatly 
at  the  hands  of  his  own  followers,  through  their  wild  exaggera- 
tion of  his  theories.  The  prayer  of  his  heart  might  well  have 
been :  "Save  me  from  my  friends — I  can  take  care  of  my  enemies 
myself !" 

The  case  of  Ricardo,  the  great  English  economist,  may  be 
pertinently  cited  as  a  well  known  example  of  the  discredit  which 
intellectual  leaders  incur  as  a  result  of  the  unwise  zeal  of  their 
followers.  Ricardo  took  for  his  theme  the  law  of  wages  and 
concluded  that  wages,  as  a  rule,  tended  to  approximate  the  cost 
of  maintaining  a  given  standard  of  living  at  a  given  time  and 
place.  Ricardo  surrounded  this  statement  with  numerous  quali- 
fications, setting  forth  a  generalization  of  great  importance.  But 
Ricardo's  followers,  more  "Ricardian"  than  Ricardo  himself, 
ignored  all  the  qualifications  and  stated  the  theory  in  a  gro- 
tesquely exaggerated  manner,  which  found  its  complete  expres- 
sion in  Lassalle's  inflexible  "iron  law  of  wages."  A  great  and 
profoundly  true  generalization  of  the  master  became,  in '  the 
hands  of  his  disciples,  a  grotesque  and  dangerous  error. 

In  like  manner,  Marx  suffered  from  his  more  Marxian  than 


SOCIALISM  85 

Marx  followers.  For  example :  in  one  of  the  earliest  of  his 
Socialist  writings,  the  "Communist  Manifesto,"  he  developed 
his  famous  class-struggle  theory  and  emphasized  the  historic 
role  of  the  proletariat.  If  the  workers  are  ever  to  be  emanci- 
pated, he  declared,  it  must  be  through'  their  own  efforts.  Here 
was  a  great  generalization  of  tremendous  importance,  the  basis 
for  a  working-class  movement.  But  some  of  his  followers, 
disregarding  his  abundant  warnings,  made  this  generalization  the 
basis  of  another,  which,  if  generally  accepted,  would  have  robbed 
the  working-class  movement  of  the  service  of  many  of  the 
finest  intellects  and  devoted  consciences  ever  enlisted  in  its 
support,  including  that  of  Marx  himself.  Their  reasoning  was 
very  simple  and  naive :  Because  the  emancipation  of  the  prole- 
tariat must  be  the  work  of  the  proletariat  itself,  it  follows  that 
no  one  who  is  not  actually  a  proletarian  can  loyally  desire  to 
serve  the  movement  for  proletarian  emancipation.  Determined 
efforts  were  made  by  some  "Marxists"  to  exclude  Marx  himself 
from  the  movement  upon  these  grounds ! 

One  other  example  of  the  exaggeration  of  his  theories  of 
which  Marx  was  the  victim  must  suffice,  though  the  number  of 
such  illustrations  might  be  indefinitely  extended.  The  material- 
istic conception  of  history,  a  doctrine  of  the  highest  philosophical 
and  sociological  importance,  is  perhaps  the  greatest  of  the  intel- 
lectual achievements  of  Marx.  The  gist  of  this  theory  is  that 
the  principal  factor  in  social  evolution  is  the  economic  one,  the 
method  of  producing  and  distributing  wealth.  This  has  become 
nowadays  a  commonplace,  but  it  was  a  revolutionary  idea  when 
Marx  first  proclaimed  it. 

Now,  Marx  never  dreamed  of  asserting  that  the  economic 
force  acts  as  the  sole  determinant  of  social  evolution.  In  order 
to  focus  the  attention  of  the  thinkers  of  his  time  upon  his  theory, 
and  in  meeting  the  attacks  of  opponents,  he,  quite  naturally,  at 
times  overemphasized  this  one  factor.  Yet  he  did  not  fail  to 
warn  his  disciples  against  falling  into  the  error  of  regarding 
the  economic  factor  as  the  only  active  influence  in  social  evo- 
lution. His  followers,  many  of  them,  disregarded  these  warnings 
and  carried  the  tendency  to  exaggerate  which  Marx  himself 
manifested  to  the  most  absurd  length.  In  their  hands  the  theory 
became  one  of  simple  economic  fatalism  and  predestination. 
According  to  their  caricature  of  the  theory,  no  other  factors 
have  influenced  the  rate  or  direction  of  the  evolution  of  society; 


86  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

race,  religion,  patriotism,  ideals  of  all  kinds  have  been 
meaningless. 

This  economic  fatalism  has  been  carried  to  the  most  absurd 
lengths,  especially  in  America.  In  the  name  of  Marx  the  pre- 
posterous claim  has  been  set  up  that,  because  men  in  general 
are  prone  to  act,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  in  accordance 
with  their  material  interests,  there  must  be  an  ascertainable 
economic  motive  for  every  act  of  an  individual;  that  if  one 
whose  material  interests  are  such  as  to  identify  him  with  the 
capitalist  class,  the  exploiters,  enters  the  movement  of  the 
working-class,  the  exploited,  the  sincerity  of  his  action  must  be 
denied,  and  a  secret,  hidden,  ulterior  motive  suspected !  In 
actual  experience  this  grotesquely  stupid  conception  of  Marx's 
great  generalization  has  wrought  great  mischief  in  the  Socialist 
movement. 

These  two  sets  of  his  disciples — those  who  regarded  him  as 
a  pope,  at  least,  and  sought  to  make  an  orthodox  creed  of  his 
theories,  and  those  whose  crude  and  wild  statements  of  the  most 
profound  truths  transformed  them  into  nightmares  of  error — 
were  the  "Marxists"  against  whom  Marx  so  often  directed  his 
withering  satire.  Marx  chafed  and  groaned  in  spirit  when  such 
followers  as  those  comprised  in  the  two  groups  we  have  con- 
sidered reduced  his  important  philosophical  and  economic  prin- 
ciples to  a  jumble  of  meaningless  absurdity.  And,  with  that 
fine  loyalty  which  marked  his  whole  life,  Friedrich  Engels 
carried  on  the  warfare  against  such  "Marxists"  long  after  the 
death  of  his  friend  and  associate. 

Fortunately,  the  last  ten  years  have  been  marked  by  an  ever- 
increasing  reaction  against  both  types  of  "Marxism."  It  is 
notably  rare  nowadays  for  the  stupid  anti-intellectualist  cry  to 
receive  serious  attention.  The  movement  itself,  in  practically 
every  country  in  the  world,  is  becoming  more  liberal  and  toler- 
ant. It  refuses  to  heed  the  stupid  demagogic  suspicion  of  those 
who  do  not  actually  come  from  the  proletarian  class,  which  was 
at  one  time  so  potent  a  source  of  factionalism;  it  no  longer 
indulges  in  heresy-trials,  but  permits  the  fullest  possible  freedom 
of  opinion.  A  Bernstein  who  rejects  some  of  the  most  impor- 
tant of  Marx's  generalizations  is  suffered  to  remain  in  the  Social 
Democratic  Party  of  Germany,  and  his  right  to  disagree  with 
Marx  is  upheld. 

By  many  very  thoughtful  observers  this  liberalizing  tendency 


SOCIALISM  87 

has  been  hailed  as  a  sure  and  certain  sign  of  the  waning  influ- 
ence of  Marx.  It  has  been  interpreted  as  showing  that  the 
theories  of  Marx  are  being  abandoned  by  those  who  call  them- 
selves Marxian  Socialists.  But  in  point  of  fact — so  far  as  the 
liberalizing  tendency  amounts  to  the  abandonment  of  crudely 
exaggerated  forms  of  Marxian  theories,  and  of  all  attempts  to 
create  a  sect  or  cult,  with  an  orthodox  philosophical  and  eco- 
nomic creed — it  must  be  otherwise  interpreted.  It  is  not  a 
reaction  against  Marx,  but  against  that  "Marxism"  which  Marx 
himself  so  despised,  and  which  consisted  of  a  perverse  and  cruel 
misrepresentation  of  his  theories.  In  revolting  against  this 
"Marxism"  the  Socialist  movement  is  in  fact  following  the 
leadership  of  Marx  himself,  and  the  tendency  represents  a  whole- 
some return  to  the  teachings  of  Marx. 

It  is  quite  true  that  the  Socialist  movement  has,  in  most 
countries,  ceased  to  concern  itself  mainly  with  the  propagation 
of  theories;  that  all  the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world  pay  an 
increasing  amount  of  attention  to  practical  work  in  the  direction 
of  social  and  political  reform.  There  has  been  a  rather  striking 
development  of  opportunism,  not  alone  in  Germany,  but  in  every 
land  where  Socialism  has  attained  political  importance.  When 
that  splendid  Socialist  leader,  Wilhelm  Liebknecht,  was  first 
elected  to  the  German  Reichstag  he  was  strongly  anti-parlia- 
mentarian. He  feared  that  the  revolutionary  spirit  of  Socialism 
would  be  engulfed  in  parliamentary  issues.  His  avowed  policy 
then  was  to  enter  the  Reichstag,  make  a  speech  denouncing  the 
capitalist  system,  and  then  march  out,  quite  like  the  hero  of  the 
nursery  rhyme !  That  was  the  naive  idea  of  revolutionary 
progress  which  prevailed  at  that  time,  even  among  astute  leaders 
of  the  revolutionary  party. 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  that  opera  bouffe  attitude  of  Liebknecht's 
to  that  which  characterized  the  last  years  of  his  life,  and  which 
characterizes  the  German  social  democracy  today.  I  hardly 
need  say  here  that  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of  Germany  is 
devoted  to  a  broad  comprehensive  policy  of  social  and  industrial 
reform;  that  it  does  not  send  its  representatives  to  the  imperial 
parliament  merely  to  make  denunciatory  speeches  and  then  walk 
out,  refusing  to  participate  in  the  work  of  legislation.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  by  the  zeal  and  ability  with  which  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  party  work  for  social  reform  that  the  confidence 
of  such  a  vast  number  of  voters  has  been  won.  Singer,  Bebel, 


88  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

and  the  other  leaders  of  the  party  know  very  well  that  this  is 
the  case :  that  only  a  very  small  minority  of  their  supporters 
understand  or  care  for  Socialist  theories. 

It  must  be  freely  admitted  that  the  temper  and  policy  of 
the  Socialist  movement  have  undergone  a  great  change.  This 
change  has  been  both  a  cause  and  a  result  of  growth.  Where 
the  Socialist  movement  is  numerically  weak,  it  is  invariably 
characterized  by  fanatical  bitterness  and  sectarian  intolerance 
and  dogmatism.  Its  first  political  victories,  often  almost  insig- 
nificant in  themselves,  are  won  in  spite  of  these  characteristics, 
most  often,  perhaps,  through  peculiarly  favorable  circumstances 
leading  to  the  election  of  the  Socialist  candidate  in  spite  of, 
rather  than  because  of,  his  Socialism. 

It  has  been  the  universal  experience  that,  as  soon  as  the 
Socialists  of  any  country  succeed  in  electing  a  single  represen- 
tative to  an  important  legislative  office,  a  change  begins  to 
manifest  itself.  The  propaganda  becomes  less  sectarian  and 
theoretical,  and  more  practical.  The  temper  of  the  party  loses 
much  of  its  arrogant  intolerance.  Its  representatives  abandon 
wild,  irresponsible  talk  of  a  sudden  revolution,  and  cheap  sneers 
at  social  reforms,  and  devote  themselves  with  energy  to  the  task 
of  securing  legislation  for  the  immediate  betterment  of  the  lot  of 
their  class. 

The  reason  for  this  change  is  apparent.  Brought  face  to  face 
with  great  opportunities  to  better  the  lot  of  the  toiling  masses, 
they  dare  not  neglect  them.  No  matter  how  small  the  specific 
reform  may  be,  considered  by  and  of  itself,  the  instinctive  class 
consciousness  of  the  Socialists  prevents  them  from  opposing  or 
ignoring  it  and  contenting  themselves  with  denunciations  of 
capitalism  or  prophecies  of  a  cooperative  commonwealth  to  come. 
It  is  easy  enough  for  the  propagandist,  free  from  responsibility, 
to  arraign  the  capitalist  system,  demonstrate  the  need  of  replac- 
ing it  by  a  saner  and  juster  system,  and  show  the  relatively 
insignificant  importance  of  some  minor  reforms,  such  as  the 
enactment  of  an  employer's  liability  law,  for  example.  ^ 

In  office,  confronted  by  the  responsibility  of  the  immediate 
challenge,  the  Socialist  dares  not  treat  such  questions  lightly. 
Always  an  evolutionist  in  theory,  as  a  mere  propagandist,  en- 
gaged in  arousing  his  apathetic  fellow-citizens,  he  not  infre- 
quently forgot  his  evolutionary  theory  and  talked  as  if  a  sudden 
revolution,  changing  the  whole  social  organism,  were  possible. 


SOCIALISM  89 

Election  to  office  brings  immediate  recognition  of  the  fact  that 
no  such  change  is  possible ;  that  the  theory  of  evolution  is  made 
up  of  vital  facts.  He  comes  to  a  realization  of  the  meaning 
Marx  intended  to  convey  by  a  favorite  phrase  of  his,  "revolu- 
tionary evolution." 

Thus,  in  the  crucible  of  actual  experience,  the  rivalry,  hatred, 
and  contempt  of  the  Socialist  for  the  social  reformer,  and  of 
the  social  reformer  for  the  Socialist,  are  melted.  The  earnest 
social  reformer  soon  finds  that  when  he  wants  child-labor 
legislation,  factory  laws,  tenement-house  reforms,  industrial 
insurance,  and  other  such  reforms,  the  fundamental  and  instinc- 
tive class  consciousness  of  the  Socialist  can  always  be  relied 
upon.  In  this  way,  the  Socialist  party  in  almost  every  European 
country  has  become  the  party  of  social  reform. 

This,  then,  is  the  basis  for  the  prevailing  opinion  that  the 
modern  Socialist  movement  has  lost  its  revolutionary  character 
and  become  a  simple  reformatory  movement.  The  validity  of 
that  judgment  depends  altogether  upon  a  certain  narrow  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  "revolution."  There  can  be  no  serious 
difference  of  opinion  upon  the  point  once  that  definition  of  the 
word  "revolution"  is  accepted. 

To  Marx,  more  than  to  any  other  man,  belongs  the  credit 
of  associating  the  Socialist  movement  with  the  concept  of  a 
social  "revolution."  The  phrase  looms  large  in  the  celebrated 
"Communist  Manifesto,"  and  in  all  the  subsequent  literature  of 
Marxian  Socialism.  But  Marx  used  the  term  "social  revolution," 
as  he  used  so  many  other  commonplace  terms,  in  a  very  different 
sense  from  that  which  common  usage  had  imparted  to  it.  To 
understand  the  significance  of  the  term  in  the  literature  of 
Marxian  Socialism,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  get  at  the 
meaning  which  Marx  ascribed  to  it,  and  which  his  most 
representative  and  authentic  exponents  have  accepted. 

Whereas,  to  most  persons,  the  term  "social  revolution"  means 
a  method,  to  Marx  it  meant  simply  a  result,  quite  regardless  of 
the  method  by  which  the  result  was  attained.  To  most  persons 
revolution  suggests  street  riotings,  barricades,  insurrections,  in- 
trigues, conspiracies,  and  coups  d'etat.  It  means  the  sudden 
overturning  of  things,  ousting  governments  and  dynasties.  In 
this  narrow  sense  the  French  people  have  been  called  the  most 
revolutionary  people  in  Europe.  Before  Marx,  the  crude  Social- 
ist thought  of  the  time  regarded  such  "revolutionary"  methods 


90  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

as  the  natural  way  to  attain  the  realization  of  its  goal.  Against 
that  sort  of  "revolutionary"  effort  Marx  directed  his  splendid 
genius  for  political  leadership. 

To  Marx  that  sort  of  revolutionary  activity  was  purely 
Utopian  and  altogether  unscientific.  He  lost  no  opportunity  to 
assail  it  and  make  it  the  butt  of  his  superb  satire.  He  pointed 
out  that  such  "revolutions"  are  not  at  all  social  revolutions. 
After  a  successful  coup  de  force,  resulting  in  the  overturning 
of  a  dynasty  or  the  changing  of  the  form  of  government,  people 
continue  to  maintain  the  chief  fundamental  social  relations  of  the 
old  regime.  The  class  struggle  persists,  and  the  wage-earner  is 
still  exploited  by  the  capitalist  as  before.  What  he  means  by 
social  revolution  is  a  thorough  transformation  of  these  social 
relations,  the  abolition  of  class  divisions  which  rest  upon  the 
exploitation  of  the  proletariat.  This  result  is  the  revolution. 
The  transformation  of  the  social  forces  of  production  to  social 
property,  however  accomplished,  is  the  revolution.  It  is  not 
more  or  less  revolutionary  whether  attained  by  peaceful  political 
action  or  by  torch  and  sword  at  the  barricades,  whether  the 
process  of  its  accomplishment  takes  fifty  years  or  is  the  result 
of  a  sudden,  cyclonic  movement. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that,  assuming  this  to  be  a  fair 
interpretation  of  Marx's  concept  of  the  social  revolution,  the 
change  which  has  come  over  the  Socialist  movement  is  not  of 
necessity  a  departure  from  the  revolutionary  path  as  Marx 
understood  the  term,  though  it  is  a  very,  great  departure  from 
the  older  revolutionary  concept  which  he  assailed,  and  which  still 
clings  to  the  term  in  our  common  usage.  It  must  also  be 
admitted  that  the  followers  of  Marx  did  not  always  conform 
their  speech  and  their  policy  to  the  philosophical  distinction  he 
imposed  upon  the  term;  that  all  too  often  they  lapsed  back  into 
what  their  teacher  derided  as  a  purely  Utopian  concept  of  revolu- 
tion. It  may  also  be  admitted  with  perfect  candor  that  Marx 
himself  occasionally  lapsed  into  that  utopianism  against  which 
his  life  and  thought  were,  as  a  whole,  so  finely  devoted. 

So  much  is  granted.  It  will  not  avail,  therefore,  to  quote 
isolated  utterances  or  actions  to  prove  that  the  thought  of  a 
sudden,  decisive  revolution  sometimes  possessed  the  mind  of 
Marx.  Against  these  lapses  from  the  scientific,  evolutionary 
attitude  must  be  set  the  overwhelming  testimony  of  his  thought 
as  a  whole,  and,  more  important  even  than  that,  of  his  practice. 


SOCIALISM  91 

Nothing  could  be  more  fallacious  than  the  attempt  to  interpret 
the  opportunistic  development  of  contemporary  Socialism  as  a 
progressive  abandonment  of  the  teachings  of  Marx.  The  assump- 
tion upon  which  it  rests,  that  opportunism  and  Marxism  are 
antithetical  concepts,  is  entirely  false.  Marx  was  nothing  if 
not  an  opportunist,  using  that  term  in  its  best,  and  strictest, 
sense.  He  was  so  far  removed  from  those  intransigents  of  the 
Socialist  movement,  who  scorn  the  idea  that  the  Socialists  should 
participate  in  the  movement  for  social  reform  through  legis- 
lative channels,  as  the  imagination  can  conceive.  He  had  the 
profoundest  contempt  for  all  who  sought  to  bind  the  movement 
to  that  abortive  attitude.  I  make  the  claim  that  the  tendency  of 
contemporary  Socialism  to  concern  itself  with  a  program  of 
immediate  social  reforms,  palliative  measures  for  the  ameliora- 
tion of  the  victims  of  the  social  struggle,  within  the  existing 
order,  represents  a  return  to  the  most  important  teachings  of 
Marx,  not  a  departure  from  them. 

In  the  "Communist  Manifesto,"  that  work  which  may  be 
said  to  be  the  corner-stone  of  modern  scientific  Socialism,  we 
find  him  laying  emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  the  transformation 
which  he  calls  the  social  revolution  is  not  to  be  a  sudden  act. 
He  speaks  of  the  "first  step  in  the  revolution"  being  the  struggle 
for  political  democracy,  the  attainment  of  the  franchise  by  the 
proletariat.  That  accomplished,  the  proletariat  is  to  wrest,  "by 
degrees,"  the  control  of  the  social  productive  forces  from  the 
hated  bourgeoisie.  His  insistence  upon  the  necessity  of  a  "first 
step,"  and  of  a  conquest  of  the  economic  resources  "by  degrees," 
shows  very  clearly  that,  from  the  first,  Marx  repudiated  the  old 
notion  of  sudden,  catastrophic  revolution.  His  ideal  was  one 
of  the  "revolutionary  evolution." 

In  the  same  profound  and  epoch-making  pamphlet  Marx 
lays  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the  Socialists,  because  they  accept 
the  class  struggle  as  their  fundamental  and  guiding  philosophy, 
must  not  confine  themselves  to  working  for  the  attainment  of 
the  ultimate  interest  of  the  proletariat,  the  abolition  of  wage- 
labor  and  its  inevitable  exploitation  and  oppression,  but  must 
participate  in  the  "immediate  struggle";  that  they  must  make 
their  own  the  "momentary  interests"  of  the  workers  as  well 
as  their  ultimate  aim.  In  pursuance  of  that  thought  he  outlined 
a  program  of  social  reform  upon  which  Socialists  and  progressive 
social  reformers  are  making  common  cause  today  in  every 


92  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

country  where  the  Socialist  parties  are  represented  in  the 
legislatures. 

Four  years  after  the  "Communist  Manifesto"  was  published, 
in  the  aftermath  of  the  revolutionary  struggle  of  1848,  some  of 
the  most  romantic  of  his  corevolutionists  were  urging  the 
workers  to  insurrection.  They  were  obsessed  by  the  notion  that 
the  workers  could  at  once  seize  the  reins  of  power  and  establish 
Socialist  republics  in  the  most  advanced  countries  of  Europe. 
Marx  assailed  these  romanticists  with  merciless  satire  and  invec- 
tive. He  denounced  them  because  they  would  "substitute  revo- 
lutionary phrase  for  revolutionary  evolution,"  and  while  the 
impatient  romanticists  assured  their  followers  that  they  could 
win  immediately,  Marx  told  them  that  it  would  take  perhaps 
fifty  years,  not  to  accomplish  the  social  revolution  indeed,  but 
to  make  themselves  "worthy  of  political  power"! 

When  Ferdinand  Lassalle  attempted,  in  1862,  to  enlist  the 
support  of  Marx  for  an  insurrection  in  Germany,  urging  him 
to  assist  in  raising  funds  for  the  purchase  of  muskets  and  ammu- 
nition, Marx  indignantly  refused,  and  the  incident  led  to  the 
termination  of  the  friendship  of  the  two  men  when  they  met  in 
London  a  few  months  later.  Marx  understood  as  Lassalle  could 
never  do  the  great  fact  of  social  evolution. 

How  much  of  an  opportunist  Marx  was  is  best  shown  by 
the  history  of  the  International  Working-Men's  Association. 
Of  far  greater  importance  than  his  contributions  to  political 
economy,  and  inferior  only  to  his  sociological  discoveries,  the 
practical  work  of  Marx  in  the  development  of  that  great  inter- 
national organization  of  the  proletariat  has  not  yet  received 
just  recognition.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  history  of  the  Inter- 
national and  avoid  the  conviction  that  Marx  was  endowed  with 
great  political  sagacity,  amounting  almost  to  genius. 

The  importance  of  the  International  to  us  in  the  present  dis- 
cussion, lies  in  the  light  its  history  sheds  upon  the  mind  and 
temper  of  its  great  leader.  Marx  initiated  the  movement,  wrote 
its  address,  or  platform,  formulated  its  rules,  and  dictated  its 
policies.  He  wrote  every  one  of  its  official  pronunciamentos. 
Never  was  there  a  political  "boss"  who  so  completely  ruled  his 
organization.  For  the  opportunism  which  characterized  the 
International  Marx  must  therefore  be  held  directly  responsible. 

It  was  Marx  who  arranged  that  the  trades  unions  of  Great 
Britain  should  cooperate  with  such  bitter  enemies  of  ordinary 


SOCIALISM  93 

trades-union  policies  as  Bright  and  Cobden  in  rousing  the  public 
opinion  of  Great  Britain  to  the  support  of  President  Lincoln  and 
the  Union  cause,  and  to  vigorous  opposition  to  the  sympathy  of 
the  government  and  the  ruling  class  in  general  for  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  which  the  government  at  one  time  practically 
decided  to  recognize  as  an  independent  power.  It  was  Marx, 
too,  who,  in  the  same  way,  brought  about  the  cooperation  of  all 
the  radical  forces  in  the  struggle  for  franchise  reform  a  few 
years  later. 

Here,  then,  was  opportunism  with  a  vengeance !  Mark  was 
not  unaware  that  there  were  elements  in  the  International  to 
whom  such  a  policy  was  repellent  in  the  extreme.  There  were 
many  followers  of  Proudhon,  the  French  anarchist  leader,  who 
were  very  bitter  in  their  opposition  to  Marx  on  account  of  his 
opportunism.  Of  these  critics  Marx  wrote,  in  a  letter  to  his 
friend  Kugelmann :  'They  brag  about  science  and  know  nothing. 
They  look  with  contempt,  as  revolutionists,  on  any  concerted 
action  of  the  working-classes,  and  they  treat  with  contempt  any 
idea  of  making  use  of  the  legislature  for  anything,  as,  e.  g.,  for 
shortening  the  hours  of  labor." 

In  the  masterly  inaugural  address  of  the  International,  which 
Marx  wrote,  the  Ten  Hours'  Act  was  hailed  as  being  "not 
merely  a  great  practical  result,"  but  as  "the  victory  of  a  prin- 
ciple." Even  the  cooperative  societies  at  which  Marx  had  been 
disposed  to  sneer  in  1848,  were  praised  and  heralded  as  a  sign 
that  wage-labor  was  a  transitory  economic  form,  destined  to  be 
replaced  by  associated  free  labor.  And  the  first  congress  of  the 
International,  at  Geneva,  adopted  resolutions,  most  of  them  writ- 
ten by  Marx,  in  favor  of  such  reforms  as  the  abolition  of  child 
labor ;  regulation  of  women's  labor  by  the  state ;  limitation  of 
the  hours  of  labor  for  adults  to  ten  per  day;  direct  taxation; 
and  so  on. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that,  altogether  irrespective  of  the  merits  of 
the  controversy  which  divides  the  opportunists  of  the  Socialist 
movement  from  their  intransigent  comrades,  it  cannot  be  said 
that  the  movement  becomes  less  Marxian  by  becoming  more 
opportunistic.  Marx  was  himself  an  opportunist  of  a  very 
pronounced  type.  In  his  mind,  the  actual  union  of  the  workers 
was  the  supremely  important  thing.  He  wanted  movement  above 
all  else.  He  revealed  the  principle  by  which  his  whole  life  was 
guided  in  the  letter  he  wrote  to  the  German  Socialists  in  1875, 


94  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

when  the  union  of  the  Lassallian  and  Marxian  forces  was  being 
negotiated :  "Every  step  of  real  movement  is  worth  a  dozen 
programs." 

Without  expressing  here  any  opinion  upon  the  wisdom  or 
otherwise  of  the  Socialists  entering  into  such  compacts  as  the 
one  upon  which  the  British  labor  party  is  based,  it  is  impossible 
for  me  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  Mr.  Hardie  with  his  belief 
in  and  alliance  with  the  labor  party  is  much  more  in  accord  with 
the  teaching  and  example  of  .Marx  than  are  his  intransigent 
critics,  even  though  the  latter  so  loudly  invoke  the  name  and 
authority  of  Marx. 

It  would  be  disingenuous  to  deny  that  some  of  Marx's  theories 
have  been  openly  abandoned  by  not  a  few  Socialists,  and  that 
they  have  been  greatly  modified  by  others  in  response  to  the 
searching  criticism  to  which  they  have  been  subjected.  Marx 
himself  regarded  monopoly-price  as  something  exceptional,  an 
abrogation  of  the  law  of  value.  Since  he  wrote  "Das  Kapital," 
the  exceptions  to  his  law  of  value  have  become  more  numerous, 
as  a  result  of  the  development  of  great  monopolies  and  near 
monopolies.  The  value  of  a  great  many  commodities  is  deter- 
mined by  their  marginal  utility,  quite  irrespective  of  the  social 
labor  actually  embodied  in  them  or  necessary  to  their  reproduc- 
tion. 

Then,  too,  some  of  the  sweeping  generalizations  which  Marx 
made,  and  which  his  followers  long  believed  to  be  absolutely  true, 
have  not  stood  well  the  test  of  history  and  close  analysis.  The 
recognition  of  this  fact  has  quite  profoundly  influenced  Socialist 
policy.  It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  the  result  has  been 
to  develop  the  movement  quite  in  harmony  with  that  broad 
spirit  of  opportunism  which  Marx  himself  so  well  and  so  bravely 
exemplified. 

Take,  for  example,  his  theory  of  agricultural  concentration. 
Marx  firmly  believed  and  confidently  predicted  that,  within  a 
comparatively  short  time,  the  small  farm  would  cease  to  exist 
He  saw  the  small  farms,  and  the  farms  of  moderate  size,  dis- 
appear, swallowed  up  by  the  bigger  ones,  and  the  whole  industry 
of  agriculture  dominated  by  immense  capital.  His  followers 
excelled  their  master's  confidence  in  the  truth  of  his  forecast. 

It  is  now  recognized  by  all  thoughtful  Socialists  that  this 
forecast  has  been  completely  belied  by  the  actual  facts  of  agri- 
cultural evolution.  The  small  farm  has  more  than  held  its  own, 


SOCIALISM  95 

the  expected  concentration  of  the  industry  has  not  taken  place; 
there  has  in  fact  been  a  well-marked  tendency  in  the  opposite 
direction  of  decentralization.  Irrigation,  "dry  farming,"  and 
the  mass  of  improved  methods  resulting  from  the  application  of 
science  to  agriculture  have  revolutionized  the  industry,  but  in 
quite  another  way  than  Marx  predicted. 

Of  course,  so  long  as  the  farming-class  was  looked  upon  as 
a  rapidly  disappearing  one,  a  class  whose  immediate  interests 
must  of  necessity,  and  in  an  increasing  degree,  be  opposed  to  the 
interests  of  the  proletariat,  the  Socialist  propaganda  made  small 
headway  in  agricultural  communities.  So  long  as  that  mistaken 
generalization  obsessed  the  minds  of  the  followers  of  Marx  they 
were  little  disposed  to  appeal  to  the  farmers,  or  to  concede  that 
the  status  of  the  farmer  and  a  belief  in  Socialism  were  quite 
compatible.  To  treat  the  farmer  as  a  negligible  quantity,  as  a 
survival  member  of  a  rapidly  disappearing  class,  of  no  account 
politically,  was  the  natural  outcome  of  that  generalization. 

When  astute  political  leaders  of  the  Socialist  movement  like 
Dr.  Adler,  of.  Austria,  and  acute  theoreticians  like  Herr  Bern- 
stein, of  Germany,  demonstrated  the  delusive  character  of  Marx's 
forecast,  and  proved  that  the  Socialists  in  those  countries  must 
either  recast  their  agrarian  policy,  so  as  to  make  a  successful 
appeal  to  the  farming  class  or  abandon  all  hopes  of  attaining 
political  success,  modern  Socialism  entered  upon  a  new  phase. 
Of  course,  there  was  some  strife,  a  bitter  conflict  between  the 
old  orthodoxy  and  the  new  truth,  and  the  complete  breaking-up 
of  the  international  Socialist  movement  was  confidently  pre- 
dicted by  many  of  its  enemies.  But  nothing  of  the  sort  hap- 
pened. The  leaders  of  the  movement  set  themselves  to  the  task 
of  studying  the  whole  problem  of  their  position  toward  the 
farmer. 

They  found  that  the  economic  interest  of  the  small  farmer 
was  not  so  antagonistic  to  the  interest  of  the  industrial  prole- 
tariat as  they  had  long  believed;  they  found  that  the  farmer 
needed  Socialism  almost,  if  not  quite,  as  badly  as  the  factory 
worker.  So  successful  has  the  Socialist  propaganda  among 
farmers  been,  without  compromising  its  revolutionary  spirit,  that 
many  of  the  greatest  strongholds  of  the  movement,  both  in 
Europe  and  America,  are  in  agricultural  districts.  The  kingdom 
of  Saxony  is  mainly  dependent  upon  agriculture,  but  it  is  known 
as  "Red  Saxony"  on  account  of  the  strength  of  the  Socialist 


96  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

movement  there.  In  the  United  States  we  find  Oklahoma  an 
agrarian  state,  taking  a  leading  place  in  the  socialist  propaganda. 

In  like  manner,  the  persistence  of  the  petty  retail  stores,  and 
of  petty  industries,  contrary  to  another  of  the  sweeping  gen- 
eralizations of  Marx,  has  profoundly  influenced  the  policy  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  While  its  main  appeal  is  and  must  of 
necessity  be  to  the  actual  proletariat,  the  Socialist  propaganda 
does  not  neglect  the  small  shopkeeper  or  the  professional  man. 
In  most  countries,  but  especially  in  the  United  States,  the 
actual  wage-workers  constitute  a  minority  of  the  population. 
The  Socialists  recognize  this  fact.  So  there  has  developed  a  new 
and  broader  concept  of  the  movement.  Only  a  very  tiny  and 
insignificant  minority  now  ever  thinks  of  demanding  that  the 
Socialist  movement  shall  be  limited  to  the  wage-earning  class. 

That  greatest  of  Socialist  political  leaders,  Liebknecht,  in  his 
later  years  insisted  that  when  the  socialists  used  the  term  "work- 
ing-class" they  included  in  its  meaning  "all  who  live  exclusively 
or  principally  by  means  of  their  own  labor,  and  who  do  not  grow 
rich  through  the  work  of  others."  Thus,  he  would  include  the 
small  farmers  and  small  shopkeepers,  as  well  as  a  majority  of 
the  professional  classes.  He  declared  that  the  German  social 
democracy  was  the  party  of  all  the  people  with  the  exception  of 
about  two  hundred  thousand.  "If  it  is  limited  to  the  wage- 
earners,"  he  said,  "  Socialism  cannot  conquer.  If  it  includes  all 
the  workers  and  the  moral  and  intellectual  elite  of  the  nation, 
its  victory  is  certain." 

To  sum  up :  There  may  be  said  to  be  two  kinds  of  Marxism, 
the  one  consisting  of  a  body  of  theoretical  and  philosophical 
generalizations,  the  other  of  certain  principles  of  working-class 
action,  precepts,  and  examples  of  tactics  for  the  movement.  This 
"practical  Marxism"  has  been  for  a  long  time  obscured  by  the 
Marxism  of  theory,  and  neglected  in  consequence.  Now  that 
critical  examination  has  forced  the  abandonment  of  some  of  his 
theories,  and  the  modification  of  some  others,  Marx  the  leader, 
the  tactician,  the  statesman,  is  taking  the  place  of  Marx  the 
theorist  to  some  extent. 

Hence  the  paradox  that  the  influence  of  Marx  upon  the 
Socialist  movement  of  today  is  increasing  just  as  rapidly  and  as 
surely  as  it  is  breaking  away  from  dogmatic  Marxism. 


SOCIALISM  97 

Forum.    44:90-4.    July,  1910 

The  Savior  of  the  Working-man.    Temple  Scott 

A  citizen  of  Europe  visiting  the  United  States  in  the  second 
half  of  the  last  quarter  of  the  eighteenth  century,  would  have 
witnessed  a  new  nation's  homage  to  its  most  distinguished  and 
most  successful  worker  in  the  cause  of  republican  principles — 
Benjamin  Franklin. 

A  citizen  of  the  United  States  visiting  Europe,  a  hundred 
years  later,  might  have  happened  to  find  himself  in  the  Kensal 
Green  Cemetery,  in  London,  in  time  to  witness  a  few  devoted 
men  and  women  paying  their  last  reverent  farewell  to  their 
leader,  as  they  placed  in  its  grave  the  dead  body  of  Karl  Marx, 
the  Socialist. 

These  two  men — Benjamin  Franklin  and  Karl  Marx — are 
typical  of  their  principles.  The  one,  a  respectable  tradesman, 
gifted  with  a  shrewd  common-sense  that  instinctively  tacked 
with  every  contrary  wind  to  a  safe  harbor,  was  a  servant  in 
heart  as  well  as  in  deed.  The  other,  a  scholar  of  an  antique  suc- 
cession, with  a  magnificent  and  even  royal  indifference  to  his  own 
welfare,  and  with  a  spirit  chivalrous  and  self -centered  as  any 
knight  of  old,  was  an  aristocrat  and  master  in  every  fiber  of  his 
being.  The  one  was  of  a  smug,  smiling,  complacent  nature,  a 
man  who  had  learned  from  adversity  the  lessons  of  economy, 
prudence  and  discretion.  The  other  was  of  an  open,  fearless, 
loving  nature,  a  man  whose  enthusiasm  for  humanity  sent  him 
adventuring,  reckless  of  personal  consequences.  The  intellect  of 
the  one  could  rise  in  delight  to  the  portentous  platitutes  of  "Poor 
Richard's  Almanack" — mediocrity's  vade-mecum.  The  genius  of 
the  other  elaborated,  after  almost  a  lifetime  of  devoted  thought, 
the  book  "Das  Kapital,"  the  most  searching  analysis  ever  accom- 
plished of  the  basic  principles  which  govern  social  evolution. 
And  yet,  today,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren to  whom  the  name  of  Benjamin  Franklin  is  a  househord 
word,  have  never  even  heard  of  Karl  Marx. 

It  would  seem  as  if  this  were  one  of  the  ironies  of  fate;  but 
it  is  not.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  of  the  nature  of  things.  Imme- 
diate success  catches  the  superficial,  who  gladly  accept  a  present 
achievement  as  an  excuse  for  inaction  and  indolent  content.  The 
respectable  and  reputable  mediocrity  of  a  Benjamin  Franklin  is 


98  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  mediocrity  of  the  average  man  to  whom  respectability  is  a 
badge  of  honor.  He  understands  it.  Teach  him  how  to  use  it 
by  means  of  a  genuflexing  discretion,  and  you  have  the  typical 
republican  citizen.  What  matters  if  this  conduct  of  life  brings 
in  its  wake  the  diseases  of  hypocrisy,  bribery,  graft  and  social 
treachery?  These  evils  are  provided  against  by  law;  and  if 
people  will  be  foolish  and  will  be  indiscreet,  the  law  must  punish 
them.  Whatever  you  do,  be  careful  not  to  be  found  out — that 
is  the  golden  rule  of  service  which  a  century's  experience  of 
government  by  democracy  has  precipitated.  It  is  the  Golden  Rule 
of  Slavery. 

But  the  adventuring,  thought-arousing  enthusiasm  of  a  Karl 
Marx  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  uncomfortable  and  disquieting.  It 
does  not  leave  you  alone;  it  compels  you  to  be  up  and  doing— 
up  and  doing  not  for  yourself  only,  but  for  yourself  and  every- 
body else ;  for  yourself  because  for  everybody  else.  It  demands 
devotion  to  an  ideal,  and  that  is  not  easy  for  people  who  worship 
Mammon  for  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  and  Jesus  Christ  for 
two  out  of  the  hundred  and  sixty-eight  hours  of  each  week. 
Of  course,  it  is  a  proper  thing  to  have  an  ideal,  as  it  is  a  proper 
thing  to  have  a  silk  hat — it  is  necessary  for  certain  occasions. 
It  is  necessary  when  we  desire  to  convert  a  false  value  into  a 
seeming  real  value.  Oh,  yes,  we  believe  in  an  ideal;  but  our 
democracy  cunningly  manages  to  prostitute  it  as  it  does  every 
aspiration  of  the  soul — to  sell  it  in  the  market-place,  having  first 
made  of  it  a  Golden  Calf.  That  is  why  we  find  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin's "Autobiography"  in  every  home;  and  that  is  why  Marx's 
"Das  Kapital"  is  buried  in  the  dust  of  public  libraries. 

Some  day  a  brilliant  genius  will  re-melt  the  gold  of  Marx's 
book  and  use  it  to  decorate  a  new  institution  that  must  arise  in 
the  course  of  events.  Then,  it  may  be,  even  children  will  lisp 
reverently  the  name  of  the  Savior  of  the  Working-man.  For 
Marx's  book  and  Marx's  life  are  the  struggles  of  a  Titan  with 
the  ignorance  of  classes  and  masses. 

Those  of  us  who  are  nobly  touched  by  the  spirit  of  unrest 
and  discontent,  and  who  find  inspiration  in  seeing  a  great  man 
fight  his  fight,  will  be  grateful  to  Mr.  John  Spargo  for  a  thir- 
teen years'  devotion  to  his  hero's  life-story.  This  book  of  his — 
"Karl  Marx:  His  Life  and  Work"  (New  York:  B.  W.  Huebsch) 
— is  a  notable  achievement.  It  reveals,  and  most  sympathetically 
and  convincingly  reveals,  a  personality  and  a  character  so  splen- 


SOCIALISM  99 

did  and  so  appealing  in  its  human  qualities,  that  it  is  impossible 
for  any  reader  to  lay  down  the  book  without  a  profound  rever- 
ence for  the  man  who  devoted  himself  to  the  work  of  redeeming 
his  fellow  working-men.  It  will  surely  serve  to  keep  green  the 
memory  of  Karl  Marx's  noble  spirit  until  such  certain  time  to 
come  when  that  spirit  shall  have  made  itself  manifest  by  the 
power  of  its  embodied  thought.  I  am  more  than  grateful  to 
Mr.  Spargo.  His  biography  compels  me  to  a  confession  of  hav- 
ing misunderstood  Karl  Marx.  I  am  hoping  that  his  book  will 
be  read  by  many  who,  like  myself,  have  hitherto  known  of  Karl 
Marx  only  through  the  pictures  presented  of  him  by  professorial 
expositors  and  academic  critics.  If  they  do,  they  will  meet  a 
splendid  fellow,  a  man  who,  in  spite  of  a  wayward  temper,  a . 
satirical  tongue,  and  a  domineering  spirit,  was  a  delightful  lover 
and  father,  an  abiding  friend,  and  possessed  of  a  heart  ever  ten- 
der to  suffering  and  sorrow.  They  will  also  meet  a  born  leader 
of  men — a  practical  politician  and  stateman  of  rare  insight. 

These  two  sides  of  Karl  Marx's  character — the  thinker  and 
the  worker — have  rarely  been  exemplified  in  one  personality  with 
his  distinguished  excellence,  and  with  such  extraordinary  power. 
In  the  midst  of  a  period  of  general  upheaval,  such  as  the  year 
1848  saw,  when  Marx's  association  with  socialistic  societies 
reached  almost  every  capital  of  Europe,  he  found  time  not  only 
to  keep  in  touch  with  their  movements,  but  he,  at  the  same  time, 
elaborated  and  placed  on  record  the  famous  Communist  Mani- 
festo— that  resounding  bugle-blast  of  modern  Socialism.  In  1864 
he  organized  the  International  Working-Men's  Association  and 
for  twelve  years  was  its  guiding  head.  In  spite  of  the  enormous 
labor  this  position  entailed  he  was  all  the  time  writing  his  great 
work  on  political  economy.  In  the  many  years  of  his  life  in 
London,  when  he  was  struggling  against  poverty  and  even  want, 
he  yet  found  time  to  write  the  Socialist  propaganda  addresses 
and  dispatch  written  opinions  and  advice  to  the  various  organiza- 
tions scattered  throughout  Europe. 

He  could  join  hands  with  Heinrich  Heine,  Friedrich  Engels 
and  Ferdinand  Lassalle  and  labor  with  them  for  the  cause  to 
which  he  had  devoted  himself.  But  he  could  also  take  up  arms 
against  Michael  Bakunin,  the  aggressive  revolutionary,  who  lived 
to  ruin  Marx's  labor  of  years.  And  such  was  the  quality  of  his 
genius  that  friend  and  enemy  alike  confessed  to  its  supreme 
power. 


ioo  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

For  we  must  never  forget,  in  measuring  this  man's  worth, 
that  the  times  in  which  he  lived  were  fraught  with  mighty  poten- 
tialities for  the  future ;  that  he  not  only  realized  those  potentiali- 
ties, but  placed  himself  on  their  side,  openly  and  fearlessly.  He 
had  thought  out  the  process  of  historical  evolution  in  social  life 
and  had  outlined  its  line  of  direction  through  the  struggle  of 
class  against  class.  He  denied  a  moral  purpose  to  this  struggle, 
even  though  that  moral  purpose  was  the  battle-cry  of  the  enthu- 
siasts. He  knew  better,  and  he  proved  it.  It  was  not  a  propa- 
ganda for  virtue  as  against  vice  that  he  carried  on;  it  was  a 
propaganda  for  the  education  of  the  masses  so  that  they  might 
realize  their  own  power  and  use  it  in  opposition  to  a  society 
that  was  subjugating  them  and  their  labor  by  appropriating  the 
products  of  their  labor.  "Communism"  he  said,  and  by  that 
word  he  meant  Socialism,  "deprives  no  man  of  the  power  to 
appropriate  the  products  of  Society;  all  that  it  does  is  to  deprive 
him  of  the  power  to  subjugate  the  labor  of  others  by  means  of 
such  appropriation." 

It  may  sound  like  the  language  of  paradox  to  speak  of  Karl 
Marx,  the  Socialist,  as  an  aristocrat.  If  it  does,  it  is  but  the 
paradox  in  which  all  truth  appears.  Only  a  noble  soul  can  act 
and  live  nobly;  and  to  act  and  live  nobly  is  to  spend  one's  self 
in  largesses — and  to  do  this  in  no  spirit  of  condescension,  but 
rather  in  humility  and  gladness  that  we  have  to  give  what  is 
worthy  of  being  received.  Surely  such  a  giver  is  of  the  elect! 
If  I  view  Karl  Marx  in  this  light  I  am  but  stating  what  his  life 
abundantly  reveals.  It  is  your  democrat,  your  republican,  your 
radical,  who  is  forever  gathering,  keeping  and  hoarding.  When 
he  does  spend  he  spends  meanly  and  grudgingly,  as  one  who  has 
not  been  accustomed  to  open  the  flood-gates  of  his  nature.  Of 
he  spends  with  a  vainglorious  eye  to  the  good  things  that  are  to 
come  back  to  him.  And  he  rarely  spends  himself — he  has  no 
soul  to  give. 

The  Socialism  of  Karl  Marx  has  no  place  for  such  publicans 
and  panderers.  Be  they  capitalists  or  wage-earners,  they  are 
slave-drivers  and  slaves ;  and  where  these  exist  there  can  be  no 
nobility.  All  are  alike  ignoble. 

In  saying  this  I  may  be  looking  through  Socialism  to  some 
thing  that  is  beyond;  but  I  am  saying  no  more  than  I  find  in 
Karl  Marx's  life  and  teaching.  I  can  draw  no  other  conclusion 
from  his  doctrine  of  surplus  value,  a  doctrine  that  posits  the 


SOCIALISM  ioi 

raison  d'etre  of  the  capitalist  society  in  which  we  live,  to  be  the 
constant  effort  to  obtain  surplus-value.  This  constant1  effort,  it 
further  states,  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  our  social  and  political 
struggles.  If  this  be  so,  then  following  Marx's  reasoning,  the 
time  must  come  when  the  laboring-class,  in  order  to  save  itself 
from  complete  servitude,  must  expropriate  the  capitalist  class. 
When  that  time  comes  production  will  no  longer  be  carried  on  for 
the  surplus-value  it  yields,  but  its  place  will  be  taken  by  co- 
operative endeavor  without  thought  of  class-exploitation.  This 
does  not  mean  that  all  men  will  be  equal,  nor  even  that  all  men 
will  equally  enjoy  life;  for  a  doctrine  cannot  alter  the  constitu- 
tion of  human  nature.  But  it  does  mean  that  the  ignoble  distinc- 
tions between  master  and  servant,  between  classes  and  masses, 
will  cease  to  exist.  All  men  will  be  masters — masters  of  their 
craft.  All  men  will  be  servants — servants  of  the  social 
community. 

It  is  ridiculous  to  speak  of  the  dignity  of  labor  under  a  sys- 
tem which  produces  the  sweat-shop  and  the  poisoned  factory; 
which  sets  working-men  uniting  to  deprive  other  working-men 
of  the  opportunity  to  earn  their  livelihoods;  which  looks  upon 
the  product  of  labor  not  as  something  that  is  good,  and  desirable, 
and  beautiful,  but  as  something  that  is  cheap,  and  saleable,  and 
ugly.  This  is  the  very  graveyard  of  ambition — a  bleak  Aceldama 
of  Sorrow,  in  which  Art  and  Beauty  are  pale  wandering  ghosts, 
haunting  the  ruined  cloisters  and  cathedrals  whose  altars  have 
been  defiled  by  the  worshippers  of  Dagon  and  Ashtaroth. 

This  also  I  have  found  in  the  life  of  Karl  Marx— that  a  brave 
spirit  will  live  bravely  and  think  bravely  despite  affliction,  perse- 
cution, and  misunderstanding.  Karl  Marx  was  not  only  an 
extraordinary  thinker;  he  was  also  an  extraordinary  man.  His 
thought  will  live  after  him.  That  is  his  legacy,  his  magnificent 
legacy  to  the  humanity  he  loved. 


K>2  SELFCtED- ARTICLES  ON 

Nation.    97:357-9.     October  16,  1913 

Socialism  and  Labor.  Reviews  of  "Marxism  Versus  Socialism," 
by  Vladimir  G.  Simkhovitch,  and  "The  Larger  Aspects  of 
Socialism,"  by  William  English  Walling 

Professor  Simkhovitch  has  no  difficulty  in  establishing  his 
thesis  of  the  bankruptcy  of  Marx's  theory  of  "scientific"  Social- 
ism. Those  who  have  kept  in  touch  with  the  Socialistic  litera- 
ture of  the  past  ten  or  fifteen  years  are  familiar  with  the  extent 
of  the  destruction  wrought  in  the  Marxian  structure  by  the 
irresistible  logic  of  hostile  facts,  and  in  "Marxism  versus 
Socialism"  these  facts  are  marshalled  in  clear  compact  array  so 
that  he  who  runs  may  read.  It  is  not  in  any  spirit  of  belittle- 
ment  of  Professor  Simkhovitch's  services  that  the  reviewer 
suggests  that  his  book  almost  gives  one  the  impression  of  slaying 
the  dead ;  fairer,  perhaps,  would  it  be  to  say  that  it,  decently  and 
in  order,  inters  the  corpse.  The  work,  in  any  case,  has  been  well 
done,  and  in  a  way  was  worth  the  doing,  for  while  Marxian 
Socialism  may  be  dead  as  a  scientific  theory,  a  great  many 
worthy  people  are  still  unaware  of  that  fact — including,  pos- 
sibly, a  large  proportion  of  the  "Intercollegiate"  Socialist  mem- 
bership, to  whom  "Marxism  versus  Socialism"  may  be 
recommended. 

"Every  tendency,"  says  Professor  Simkhovitch  (and  he  hand- 
ily proves  what  he  says),  "that  Marx  and  Engels  confided  in 
has  been  checked,  retarded,  deflected,  or  reversed.  Industry  has 
not  concentrated  to  any  such  extent  as  the  fathers  of  scientific 
Socialism  expected.  Agriculture  shows  tendencies  towards  de- 
centralization. The  concentration  of  wealth  and  proletarization 
of  the  middle  class  has  proved  a  fable:  the  moderate  incomes 
are  steadily  increasing  in  number.  The  idea  of  the  growing 
misery  of  the  proletariat  is  abandoned  in  view  of  facts  that 
prove  the  opposite;  the  class  struggle,  instead  of  increasing,  is 
as  a  whole  diminishing.  Commercial  crises  that  were  to  increase 
till  they  destroyed,  like  an  earthquake,  our  whole  industrial 
organization,  are  admittedly  abating  their  fury." 

Of  course,  this  does  not  mean  that  Socialism  or  the  coopera- 
tive commonwealth  is  impossible.  But  it  does  mean  that 
Socialism  is  just  as  "utopian"  today  as  it  was  before  Marx 
wrote  and  rescued  it  from  that  estate  which  seemed  so  low  in 
his  eyes  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  generation  which  followed  him. 


SOCIALISM  103 

And,  as  Professor  Simkhovitch  says  in  his  introduction,  "Today 
the  social  movement  throughout  the  world  is  in  one  sense  but 
a  quest  for  a  new  possible  meaning  of  the  word  Socialism." 

Pat  to  the  reviewer's  hand  comes  a  shining  proof  of  the  truth 
of  that  statement  in  the  shape  of  a  new  book  by  William  English 
Walling — "The  Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism."  The  author  has 
earned  the  right  to  a  front-rank  place  among  the  American 
Socialist  "intellectuals"  and  his  "Socialism  as  It  Is"  of  two  years 
ago  was  an  interesting  objective  study  of  the  Socialist  move- 
ment the  world  over.  A  clear-sighted  observer,  and  a  reporter 
honest  with  himself  and  the  public,  he  there  furnished  abundant 
evidence  of  the  great  recent  change  in  character  of  the  Socialist 
movement  from  that  which  marked  it  in  the  days  of  Marx. 
Within  its  covers  was  contained  most  of  the  evidence  that  one 
could  desire  to  prove  the  death  of  the  Marxian  hypothesis — as 
indeed  the  reviewer  then  pointed  out.  Now  he  comes  to  exhibit 
to  us  the  soul  of  the  new  Socialism,  which  he  calls  "a  new 
civilization  that  is  gradually  being  embodied  in  a  new  social 
movement."  In  the  "Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism,"  which  is, 
as  he  himself  says,  complementary  to  "Socialism  as  It  Is,"  he 
presents  to  us  the  soul,  and  he  finds  it  not  in  any  materialistic 
Hegelianism,  not  in  any  mechanistic  system  of  evolution,  but  in 
what  he  calls  the  "philosophy  of  modern  science,"  and  this  proves 
to  be  pragmatism! 

Mr.  Walling's  definitions  of  Socialism  as  he  now  under- 
stands the  word  are  more  eloquent  than  pages  of  explanation, 
and  we  must  let  him  state  his  own  case  in  his  own  way: 

It  is  customary  for  Socialist  writers,  in  spite  of  these  admitted  facts, 
to  define  the  Socialist  movement  as  being  mainly  a  class-struggle  of 
working  people  against  capitalists,  and  then  proceed  to  qualify  this  defini- 
tion. This  procedure  is  not  in  accord  with  the  present  methods  of  science 
which  demand  instead  of  a  rigid  definition  with  an  unlimited  number  of 
qualifications  a  definition  broad  enough  and  loose  enough  so  that  it  does 
not  need  to  be  qualified.  From  this  standpoint  perhaps  the  nearest  we 
can  come  to  a  definition  is  to  say  that  Socialism  is  a  movement  of  the 
non-privileged  to  overthrow  the  privileged  in  industry  and  government. 
.  .  .  In  other  words,  Socialism  is  a  struggle  of  those  who  have  less 
against  those  who  have  more  than  equal  opportunity  would  afford  (p.  u). 

The  conflict  of  Socialism  with  present  society  is  not  in  reality  a  class 
struggle.  It  is  not  a  struggle  between  two  social  classes  or  even  two 
groups  of  social  classes.  It  is  a  class  struggle  only  on  one  side.  The 
ruling  class  or  ruling  classes  are  more  or  less  unified;  Socialism  represents 
the  opposition  of  all  the  rest  of  the  population  but  not  of  a  class  .  .  . 
There  is  only  one  class,  the  class  that  rules  humanity  and  must  be 


104  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

conquered  by  humanity.  .  .  .  Both  the  phrases  "class-struggle"  and 
"class-consciousness"  may  legitimately  be  used  to  mean  exactly  the  oppo- 
site of  what  the  majority  of  Socialists  intend  them  to  mean  (p.  13). 

All  that  remains  wholly  unobjectionable  of  the  older  social- 
istic formulations  is  the  "economic  interpretation,"  and  that,  too, 
must  be  construed  in  a  new  way.  Because  latter-day  pragmatism 
— and  particularly  the  system  of  Professor  Dewey — gives  it  a 
new  meaning,  Mr.  Walling  adopts  this  philosophic  system  as 
being  virtually  Socialism  itself.  "Social  truth  is  born  in  social 
struggles.  .  .  .  This  truth  and  this  alone  is  the  essence  of 
all  Socialism,  from  Marx  to  modern  pragmatism."  Consequently, 
in  place  of  the  absolutely  inevitable  process  of  inexorable  law 
which  issues  in  the  cooperative  commonwealth  as  its  necessary 
culmination — the  "scientific"  Marxian  view — Mr.  Walling  adopts 
the  principle  enunciated  by  John  H.  Hobson,  that  "so  far  as 
the  selection,  valuation,  and  utilization  of  realities  go  man  is 
the  maker  of  the  universe."  This  he  regards  as  "the  principle 
which  underlies  both  modern  science  and  philosophy  and  the 
modern  social  movement,  that  is,  Socialism."  And  Socialism 
"armed  with  the  new  philosophy  will  revolutionize  all  civilization 
and  culture — as  soon,  that  is,  as  economic  and  social  conditions 
permit  the  masses  to  realize  and  to  utilize  the  new  science  and 
the  new  philosophy." 

Doubtless,  Mr.  Walling  would  vigorously  deny  the  charge 
that  he  was  no  better  than  a  "utopian"  Socialist;  and,  on  the 
ground  that  there  is  in  his  philosophy  no  fixed  principle  of 
justice — or  of  anything  else  beyond  the  fixed  principle  that  phil- 
osophy itself  evolves — and  in  his  ethics  no  "ought,"  he  might 
possibly  obtain  a  technical  acquittal.  But  when  he  says  that 
Socialism  "is  evolving  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word ;  that  is, 
like  every  living  thing  it  is  taking  on  characters  that  could  not 
have  been  predicted  even  by  omniscience  (sic},  to  say  nothing 
of  the  merely  human  powers  of  foresight  of  its  early  formula- 
tors,"  he  clearly  pitches  his  tent  very  far  away  from  the  old 
Socialist  encampment,  and  it  is  only  by  straining  the  word 
"science"  that  he  cannot  connect  it  with  his  position. 

It  is  as  an  example  of  the  tendency  noted  by  Professor  Simk- 
hovitch  that  Mr.  Walling' s  latest  book  is  mainly  important.  His 
naive  discovery  of  pragmatism  ("a  new  name  for  old  ways  of 
thinking,"  as  James  called  it!),  and  his  enthusiastic  acclamation 
of  the  "new  science"  and  the  "new  philosophy,"  are  accomplished 


SOCIALISM  105 

with  a  gloriously  dogmatic  repudiation  of  all  dogma,  whether  of 
science,  art,  or  religion,  and  an  authoritative  rejection  of  all 
authority,  which  give  his  work  a  pleasant  flavor  of  youth  and 
freshness.  One  may,  however,  wonder  whether  in  his  identifica- 
tion of  pragmatism  with  Socialism  Mr.  Walling  represents  a  real 
advance  guard  of  socialistic  thought,  or  merely  a  small  band  of 
foragers  poking  around  in  the  brush.  To  our  thinking  it  is  as  a 
clear  sighted  observer  and  honest  chronicler  of  what  he  has 
seen  rather  than  as  a  philosopher  that  Mr.  Walling  best  serves 
the  community,  and  one  'Socialism  as  It  Is'  is  worth  a  dozen  of 
its  immediate  successor. 


PROGRESSIVE  SOCIALISM 

Annals  of  the  American  Academy.     18:391-419. 
November,  1901 

Bernstein  Versus  "Old- School"  Marxism.     G.  A.  Kleene 

In  the  year  1862,  the  energy  and  ambition  of  Ferdinand 
Lassalle  sought  an  outlet  in  an  agitation  in  behalf  of  the  laboring 
class.  In  1863  this  wonderful  man  created  the  Universal  Ger- 
man Laborers'  Union  (Allgemeiner  Deutscher  Arbeit  erverein), 
the  first  organization  of  German  social  democracy.  Killed  in  a 
duel  in  1864,  he  left  a  small,  and  not  altogether  harmonious, 
group  of  followers.  In  the  same  decade,  Liebknecht  and  his 
young  disciple,  Bebel,  began  to  preach  to  the  German  laborer 
the  ideas  of  Karl  Marx,  ideas  differing  in  important  respects 
from  those  of  Lassalle.  The  latter's  aims  were  idealistic,  national 
and  state  socialistic;  the  Socialism  of  Karl  Marx  was  based  on 
materialism,  was  international  or  cosmopolitan,  and  hostile  to 
the  existing  state  and  to  state  Socialism.  In  the  seventies  fol- 
lowers of  Marx  and  Lassalle  united  to  form  the  Sosialistische 
Arbeiterpartei,  as  the  German  Social  Democratic  Party  was  then 
called,  and  the  first  platform  of  the  party,  the  Gotha  program, 
contains  indications  of  a  compromise  between  the  two  groups. 
As  time  passed,  the  doctrine  of  Marx  became  predominant. 
Marx,  not  Lassalle,  is  today  the  recognized  master  of  German 
Socialists.  Within  the  past  few  years,  however,  Marxism,  as  a 
theory  and  a  political  method,  has  entered  upon  a  crisis  that  per- 
haps indicates  its  dissolution,  while  in  the  movement  represented 
by  Bernstein,  the  editor  and  biographer  of  Lassalle,  but  long 
known  as  a  Marxist,  there  has  come  to  the  front  a  Socialism 
that  bears  closer  resemblance  to  that  of  Lassalle  than  to  that  of 
Marx.  Lassalle  is  not  invoked  as  its  leader ;  the  cry  "Back  to 
Lassalle"  has  not  been  raised,  but  there  is,  nevertheless,  a 
turning  from  Marxian  materialism  to  idealism,  from  Marxian 
dislike  of  patriotism  and  the  national  spirit  to  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  importance  of  national  interests,  from  Marxian 
hatred  of  the  present  state  to  a  recognition  of  what  govern- 
ments, as  organized  today,  have  done  and  can  do  for  the 
laboring  class. 


io8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  authoritative  statement  of  the  faith  of  the  German 
Social  Democratic  Party  is  given  in  the  Erfurt  program,  adopted 
in  1891.  Some  of  its  most  significant  utterances  may  be  here 
quoted : 

The  economic  development  of  industrial  society  tends  inevitably  (mit 
Naturnotwendigkeit~)  to  the  ruin  of  small  industries,  which  are  based  on 
the  workman's  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production.  It  separates 
him  from  the  means  of  production  and  converts  him  into  a  destitute  mem- 
ber of  the  proletariat,  whilst  a  comparatively  small  number  of  capitalists 
and  great  landowners  obtain  a  monopoly  of  the  means  of  production. 

Hand  in  hand  with  this  growing  monopoly  goes  ...  a  gigantic 
increase  in  the  productiveness  of  human  labor.  But  all  the  advantages  of 
this  revolution  are  monopolized  by  the  capitalists  and  great  landowners. 
To  the  proletariat  and  to  the  rapidly  sinking  middle  classes,  the  small 
tradesmen  of  the  towns  and  the  peasant  proprietors,  it  brings  an  increasing 
misery,  oppression,  servitude,  degradation  and  exploitation. 

Ever  greater  grows  the  mass  of  the  proletariat,  ever  vaster  the  army 
of  the  unemployed,  ever  sharper  the  contrast  between  oppressors  and 
oppressed,  ever  fiercer  that  war  of  classes  between  bourgeoisie  and  pro- 
letariat which  divides  modern  society  into  two  hostile  camps. 

Nothing  but  the  conversion  of  capitalist  private  ownership  of  the  means 
of  production  .  .  .  into  social  ownership  can  effect  such  a  revolution 
that  instead  of  large  industries  and  the  steadily  growing  capacities  of  com- 
mon production  being,  as  hitherto,  a  source  of  misery  and  oppression  to 
the  classes  whom  they  have  developed,  they  may  become  a  source  of  the 
highest  well  being.  .  .  . 

This  social  revolution  involves  the  emancipation,  not  merely  of  the 
proletariat  but  of  the  whole  human  race.  .  .  .  But  this  emancipation 
can  be  achieved  by  the  working  class  alone.  .  .  . 

It  must  be  the  aim  of  social  democracy  to  give  conscious  unanimity 
to  this  struggle  of  the  working  class  and  to  indicate  its  inevitable  goal 
(naturnotwendiges  Ziel). 

The  view  presented  in  the  program  of  present  industrial 
society  tending  inevitably  toward  So6ialism  is  connected  with 
Marx's  "materialistic  conception  of  history,"  a  theory  of  social 
development  which  leaders  of  the  Social  Democratic  Party  ap- 
parently consider  a  necessary  article  of  faith.  The  most  com- 
plete and  authoritative  statement  of  this  theory  from  the  pen  of 
Marx  is  that  in  the  preface  of  his  "Kritik  der  Politischen  Oeko- 
nomie,"  published  in  1859.  It  is  obscure  and  involved  in 
expression  and  a  rather  free  translation  must  be  given : 

As  producers,  the  members  of  industrial  society  enter  into  certain 
necessary  relations  to  one  another,  relations  independent  of  the  human  will 
and,  in  their  totality,  making  up  the  economic  structure  of  society.  This 
economic  structure  corresponds  to  the  stage  of  development  reached  by  the 


SOCIALISM  109 

productive  force  (Produktivkr'dfte),  and  forms  the  basis  for  a  legal  and 
political  superstructure.  Corresponding  to  it  is  the  mental  life  of  society. 
The  manner  of  production  for  man's  material  life  determines  (bedingt) 
the  social,  political  and  mental  life.  It  is  not  the  mind  of  man  that 
determines  his  life  in  society,  but  this  life  that  determines  mind.  At  a 
certain  stage  in  their  development  the  productive  forces  of  society  get 
into  conflict  with  the  existing  economic  structure,  or,  in  other  words,  with 
the  social  organization  based  on  property  (the  legal  aspect  of  economic 
structure).  Ceasing  to  be  the  channels  within  which  the  productive  forces 
move  freely,  the  economic  structure  and  law  of  property  become  hindrances. 
Then  ensues  a  period  of  social  revolution.  Corresponding  to  the  revolu- 
tion in  the  economic  basis  of  society,  there  is  a  more  or  less  rapid  change 
of  the  entire  superstructure.  In  the  study  of  such  revolutions  we  must 
always  distinguish  between  the  changes  in  the  material  conditions  of  pro- 
duction, which  are  the  subject  of  scientific  observation,  and  the  legal, 
political,  religious,  aesthetic  and  philosophical  activities — the  mental  life — 
in  which  man  becomes  conscious  of,  and  takes  part  in,  this  conflict.  We 
do  not  in  judging  a  man  accept  his  opinion  of  himself.  No  more  in 
the  study  of  a  social  revolution  ought  our  judgment  to  be  based  on 
men's  opinions  of  it,  but  rather  ought  we  to  seek  the  explanation  of  the 
thoughts  and  feelings  of  those  living  in  such  a  period  in  the  contradictions 
of  their  material  life,  in  the  conflict  between  production  and  organization. 
A  society  never  dies  until  all  the  productive  forces  which  can  find  scope 
within  it  have  reached  their  full  development,  and  a  new  and  higher  form 
of  social  life  cannot  take  its  place  until  the  material  conditions  of  existence 
of  the  new  society  have  been  given  birth  by  the  old.  ...  In  broad 
outlines,  we  can  trace  the  following  periods  of  economic  and  social  develop- 
ment: the  oriental,  the  ancient,  the  feudal,  the  bourgeois.  The  bourgeois 
organization  is  the  last  antagonistic  form  of  the  productive  process,  antag- 
onistic ...  in  the  sense  of  an  antagonism  growing  out  of  the  social 
and  economic  conditions  of  individuals.  The  productive  forces  growing  up 
within  the  bourgeois  society,  however,  are  creating  the  material  conditions 
for  the  solution  of  this  antagonism. 

We  find  in  this  passage,  stated  explicity,  a  theory  of  social 
development  basing  all  social  life  on  economic  factors.  We 
find  implied  a  theory  of  knowledge  which  regards  man's 
mental  activity  as  a  reflection  of  physical  conditions,  and  a 
monistic  philosophy  which  denies  freedom  of  will  and  looks 
upon  human  life,  individual  and  social,  as  a  part  of  nature 
and  in  a  process  of  evolution.  In  the  use  of  such  terms  as 
contradiction  and  antagonism,  in  the  announcement  of  an  an- 
tagonism created  by  forces  within  a  given  society  and  its  solution 
by  forces  arising  within  the  same  society,  there  is  an  echo  of 
Hegelian  dialectic.  Hegel,  as  usually  interpreted,  regarded  the 
world  as  an  evolution  of  mind,  in  which  thought  in  its  develop- 
ment creates  a  contradiction  within  itself,  but  develops  also  a 
solution  of  the  contradiction,  a  reconciliation  of  opposites  in  a 


i  io  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

higher  unity — a  process  of  logical  evolution  marked  by  the 
phases  thesis — anti-thesis — synthesis.  Marx  saw  only  a  material 
development,  but  this  he  was  disposed  to  view  as  a  dialectic 
process,  a  constant  development  of  contradictions  to  be  solved 
by  some  synthesis.  This  leaning  to  the  methods  of  the  Hegelian 
dialectic  distinguished  his  theory  from  the  modern  idea  of  evo- 
lution. Applied  to  an  interpretation  of  the  present  industrial 
system,  it  attains  its  greatest  interest.  It  beholds  the  development 
of  a  contradiction  in  this  system  that  will  lead,  with  inevitable 
logic,  to  its  own  solution,  to  a  "synthesis"  in  Socialism. 

Socialism  is  not  advocated  on  moral  grounds  by  Marxists. 
Why  apply  efhics  to  the  course  of  nature?  Socialism  is  as  in- 
different ethically  and  yet  as  certain  as  the  rising  and  setting  of 
the  sun.  Unable  to  meet  the  objections  that  may  be  urged 
against  any  conceivable  collectivist  regime,  the  Marxist  might 
say,  with  a  shrug  of  his  shoulder:  "It  is  coming,  whether  we 
like  it  or  no.  It  is  fate."  He  might  choose  not  to  exert  him- 
self for  its  realization,  because  it  will  come  of  itself.  Such 
consistent  inaction,  however,  is  repugnant  to  the  normal  man, 
and  gives  no  scope  to  political  ambition.  To  the  proletariat 
there  would  be  at  least  an  intellectual  satisfaction,  if  not  also  a 
tactical  advantage,  in  the  consciousness  of  the  inevitable  part 
it  is  to  play  in  the  great  historical  drama.  There  is,  to  the  joy 
of  the  Marxist,  a  class  conflict.  The  contradictions  within  a 
society  that  compel  its  overthrow  manifest  themselves  in  a  strug- 
gle between  economic  classes,  and  every  great  revolution  in  his- 
tory appears  as  the  work  of  some  one  class.  The  issue  of  the 
present  struggle  between  bourgeoisie  and  proletariat  will  be  the 
triumph  of  the  latter,  the  "dictatorship"  (Diktatur}  of  the 
proletariat.  It  is  not,  however,  until  the  contradictions  of  the 
present  system  have  fully  developed,  not  until  capitalism  has 
run  its  course,  that  the  new  order  can  take  the  place  of  the  old. 
Hence  the  need  of  patience,  and  all  the  greater  need  because 
there  is  no  ground  of  hope  for  any  great  improvement  of  the 
laborer's  condition  under  the  present  system.  In  fact  it  is  a 
question  whether,  from  the  Marxian  point  of  view,  all  attempts 
to  improve  the  laborer's  condition  under  the  existing  system 
ought  not  to  meet  the  sternest  opposition.  Such  partial  reforms, 
it  might  be  argued,  weaken  that  antagonism  within  the  present 
order  that  drives  us  on  to  Socialism,  and,  in  attempting  to  make 
conditions  more  tolerable,  only  prolong  the  agony  and  postpone 


SOCIALISM  in 

the  coming  of  the  better  order  of  society.  This,  apparently,  not 
illogical  conclusion  has  been  drawn  by  some  followers  of  Marx, 
but,  to  the  leaders  of  a  political  party,  such  consistency  is  out  of 
question.  The  laborers'  vote  is  not  won  by  opposing  measures 
giving  him  some  immediate  relief,  and  the  social  democracy,  a 
laboring  man's  party,  has  therefore  given  a  prominent  place  to 
reforms  in  taxation  and  to  factory  legislation. 

To  the  materialistic  conception,  sketched  above,  must  be  joined 
the  theory  of  value  and  distribution  developed  in  "Das  Kapital" 
to  obtain  the  complete  Marxian  creed.  This  creed  is  at  the  basis 
of  the  Erfurt  program,  and  may  be  regarded  as  more  funda- 
mental and  authoritative  for  the  Social  Democratic  Party  than 
the  program  itself.  To  the  student  of  the  history  of  thought  it 
appears  scarcely  credible  that  a  system  so  comprehensive  as  that 
of  Karl  Marx  could  maintain  itself  for  a  single  generation 
except  as  an  object  of  blind  devotion.  More  than  half  a  century, 
however,  has  passed  since,  in  a  time  of  political  excitement  and 
intensest  mental  activity,  there  came  to  the  mind  of  Marx,  in 
outline  the  characteristic  features  of  his  system.  For  about 
forty  years  he  and  Friedrich  Engels  labored  to  extend  and 
complete  it.  After  the  death  of  Marx  in  1883,  Engels  continued 
alone  the  work  until  death,  in  1895,  removed  him  also  from  his 
still  unfinished  task.  Whatever  Marxism  may  have  been  in  the 
minds  of  these  cooperating  thinkers,  their  followers  certainly 
fell  into  confusion.  The  chief  elements  in  the  thought  of  Marx 
can  be  easily  stated;  it  is  the  connection  between  them  that 
presents  difficulties.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  Marx  himself 
ever  completely  unified  his  thought.  His  followers  certainly  have 
proved  unequal  to  the  strain  of  holding  together,  in  bonds  of 
logic,  the  scattered  ideas  found  in  his  works.  Marxism  as  an 
historical  phenomenon,  as  a  general  movement  of  thought  and 
not  as  the  opinions  of  an  individual  thinker,  has  been  a  group  of 
loosely  connected  ideas  of  which  first  one  and  then  another 
has  been  emphasized  according  to  the  exigencies  of  political 
controversy. 

Increasing  the  confusion  due  to  the  difficulty  of  interpretation, 
is  the  insufficiency  of  the  Marxian  system  in  the  face  of  new 
knowledge  and  changed  conditions.  Material  that  is  now  anti- 
quated was  built  into  it  at  the  beginning.  The  intellectual  atmos- 
phere has  undergone  a  change.  Ricardo  and  Adam  Smith,  in 
the  forties  and  fifties,  still  exercised  such  authority  that  the 


ii2  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

labor  theory  of  value  could  be  taken,  almost  without  question, 
as  one  of  the  premises  of  economic  reasoning.  Hegelianism 
had  not  yet  spent  its  force.  Though  largely  rejected  or  given 
a  materialistic  turn,  as  by  Feuerbach  and  Marx,  it  had  yet 
entered  so  deeply  into  German  thought  as  to  be  used  uncon- 
sciously. To  the  German  of  the  latter  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century  it  has  become  unintelligible.  Among  the  younger  Marx- 
ists the  dialectic  process,  with  its  automatic  movement,  has 
been  given  up  in  favor  of  a  theory  of  social  evolution  based  on 
a  conscious  class  struggle.  The  Hegelian  lingo  of  Marx  and 
Engels  is  still  piously  repeated,  but  it  is  little  understood. 
Furthermore,  the  political  atmosphere  has  changed.  Marx's  early 
manhood  was  spent  in  the  midst  of  the  agitation  for  constitu- 
tional reform  of  the  forties,  of  the  revolutionary  excitement  of 
1848,  and  of  the  gloom  that  set  in  with  the  reaction  of  the  years 
following  '48.  There  settled  into  his  thought  a  revolutionary 
spirit,  a  hatred  of  governments  that  does  not  appeal  to  the  gen- 
eration grown  up  since  general  manhood  suffrage  brought  gov- 
ernment under  the  power  of  popular  opinion.  Industrial 
conditions  also  have  changed,  and  that  sufficiently  to  suggest  a 
correction  of  several  socialistic  tenets. 

Slowly,  almost  imperceptibly,  the  faith  of  the  Social  Demo- 
cratic Party  has  been  moving  away  from  the  earlier  formula- 
tions. Orthodoxy  is  breaking  down.  Of  this  the  declarations 
made  by  Eduard  Bernstein  and  his  sympathizers  give  the  clearest 
evidence.  There  is  not  much  that  is  altogether  new  in  Bern- 
stein's writings.  Indeed  the  bitterness  of  the  controversy  his 
views  have  given  rise  to  within  the  party  is  not  easily  explained. 
In  part  the  intense  interest  may  be  due  to  the  general  recog- 
nition of  Bernstein's  ability  and  importance.  He  has  been 
ranked  with  Kautsky  and  Conrad  Schmidt  among  the  ablest 
living  leaders  of  German  Socialism,  has  enjoyed  the  friendship 
of  Friedrich  Engels,  has  contributed  extensively  to  the  Social 
Democratic  press  and  edited  the  works  of  Lassalle,  has  written 
scholarly  articles  on  the  English  labor  movement,  and  has  been 
identified  with  Marxism  for  twenty  years  or  more.  For  a  long 
period  he  was  banished  from  Germany.  These  years  of  exile 
were  spent  in  London,  and  probably  broadened  his  views  and 
saved  him  from  a  crabbed  Marxist  orthodoxy.  Very  recently 
he  has  received  permission  to  return  to  Germany.  In  the  years 
1896  to  1898  he  published  in  the  Neue  Zeit,  under  the  title 


SOCIALISM  113 

"Probleme  des  Socialismus,"  a  series  of  articles  criticising  cur- 
rent interpretations  of  Marxian  Socialism.  A  lively  discussion 
followed  in  socialistic  circles.  From  what  may  be  called  the 
"Old  School  Marxists"  his  views  met  with  sweeping  disapproval. 
One  writer,  "Parvus,"  went  so  far  as  to  remark  in  the  Sachsische 
Arbeiterzeitung,  that  these  views,  if  true,  would  mean  the  end  of 
Socialism.  To  bring  matters  to  a  head,  it  appears,  Bernstein  sent 
an  address  to  the  annual  convention  of  the  party  held  in  Stutt- 
gart, October,  1898.  Further  controversy  followed,  leading  to 
the  publication  of  Bernstein's  "Voraussetzungen  des  Socialis- 
mus," in  the  spring  of  1899.  Articles  for  and  against  his  views 
then  appeared  in  rapid  succession  in  the  Neue  Zeit  and  in  the 
Socialistische  Monatshefte.  Most  conspicuous  among  the  de- 
fenders of  old  school  Marxism  is  Karl  Kautsky,  whose  little 
book,  "Bernstein  u.  das  Sozial  Demokratische  Programm,"  1899, 
was  published  with  the  avowed  hope  of  disposing  of  the  annoy- 
ing subject  of  Bernsteinism,  and  may  be  regarded  as  the  ablest 
recent  exposition  and  defense  of  the  views  attacked  by  Bern- 
stein. In  a  collection  entitled  "Zur  Geschichte  u.  Theorie  des 
Socialismus,"  Bernstein  has  republished  some  articles  in  reply  to 
attacks  on  his  "Voraussetzungen."  The  latter  work  with  some  of 
the  controversial  papers  in  "Zur  Geschichte  u.  Theorie  des 
Socialismus,"  may  be  taken  as  the  ripest  expression  of  his 
thought,  and  will  be  made  the  basis  of  the  summary  of  his  views 
to  be  given  below. 

The  question,  Is  Bernstein  a  Marxist?  will  puzzle  the  reader 
of  his  works.  In  his  departure  from  current  interpretations  of 
the  faith  he  often  appears  anxious  to  lean  on  the  authority  of 
Marx  and  Engels.  On  other  occasions  he  flatly  contradicts 
Marx  himself.  He  distinguishes  between  pure  and  applied 
theory.  The  former,  consisting  of  propositions  of  general  valid- 
ity, constitutes  the  relatively  permanent  portions  of  a  science. 
The  latter,  made  up  of  applications  of  the  general  theory  of  a 
practical  and  detailed  nature,  is  more  subject  to  change.  The 
pure  theory  of  Marxism  includes  the  materialistic  philosophy  of 
history  (and  implied  in  this  the  doctrine  of  class  conflict), 
the  theory  of  surplus  value  and  of  the  tendencies  of  present 
industrial  society.  This  careful  distinction  between  pure  and 
applied,  permanent  and  variable,  lead  to  the  expectation  that 
Bernstein,  the  old  Marxist,  would  direct  destructive  criticism 
against  the  applied  theory  only.  The  pure  theory  of  Marxism, 


ii4  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

however,  receives  corrections  that  amount  to  an  abandonment  of 
some  of  its  fundamental  propositions. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  begin  the  summary  of  Bernstein's 
views  with  the  more  theoretical  portions  of  Marxism,  taking  up 
first  the  theory  of  value  and  surplus  value.  His  discussion  ot 
this  subject  constitutes  one  of  the  least  important  and  least  satis- 
factory chapters  in  the  "Voraussetzungen."  It  shows  keen 
thought,  but  reaches  no  very  definite  conclusions.  In  the  third 
volume  of  "Das  Kapital,"  published  in  1894,  Marx  declared  mar- 
ket value  equal  to  cost  of  production,  the  average  rate  of  profit 
being  one  of  the  elements  of  cost.  He  appeared  thus  to  have  sur- 
rendered the  labor  theory  of  value  upon  which  the  reasoning  of 
the  first  two  volumes  was  based,  and  which  had  become  an  article 
of  faith  to  his  followers.  The  third  volume  brought  confusion 
into  the  Marxist  camp  as  regards  the  theory  of  value,  and  Bern- 
stein's skeptical  attitude  toward  the  Marxian  treatment  of  this 
problem  is  not,  therefore,  especially  significant.  If  commodities 
exchange  in  proportion  to  the  cost  of  production  what  becomes 
of  the  view  that  the  exchange  takes  place  in  proportion  to  the 
average,  socially  necessary  labor  time  devoted  to  their  production? 
Is  the  old  labor  theory  of  value  to  be  regarded  as  a  description  of 
conditions  existing  prior  to,  or  at  the  beginning  of,  the  modern 
capitalistic  period  and  projecting  their  influence  into  the  period? 
This  view,  suggested  in  the  third  volume  of  "Das  Kapital,"  and 
later  amplified  and  defended  by  Engels  in  an  article  in  the  Neue 
Zeit,  Bernstein  rejects.  Or  is  the  labor  theory  to  be  taken  as  a 
mere  device  of  thought,  a  means  of  analysis  and  illustration 
employed  to  show  the  operation  of  exploitation  and  the  rise  of 
surplus  value?  The  labor  time  used  in  the  production  of  the 
total  of  commodities  gives  according  to  Marx's  third  volume, 
their  social  value?  The  excess  of  the  total  product  over  total 
wages  gives  us  total  social  surplus.  Marx,  in  assuming  that  a  given 
commodity  sells  in  proportion  to  its  labor  value,  uses  the  given 
single  instance  to  picture  what  takes  place  in  production  as  a 
whole  and  viewed  collectively.  So  Bernstein  interprets  Marx, 
but  admits  that  this  surreptitious  introduction  of  the  concept  of 
collective  social  production  into  the  discussion  of  the  existing 
system  is  rather  arbitrary.  The  theory  of  labor  value,  he  further 
states,  is  misleading  in  that  it  tempts  us  to  take  labor  value  as  a 
measure  of  the  exploitation  of  the  laborer  by  the  capitalist.  It 
does  not  give  a  correct  measure,  even  if  we  take  society  as  a 


SOCIALISM  115 

whole  and  place  over  against  total  wages  the  total  of  the  other 
forms  of  income.  The  theory  also  gives  no  measure  of  the  jus- 
tice or  injustice  of  distribution.  In  taking  justice  into  considera- 
tion Bernstein  departs  widely  from  the  Marxian  point  of  view. 
Marx  held  that  the  laborer  does  not  receive  the  entire  product 
of  his  labor,  that  he  is  being  robbed.  His  Socialism,  however, 
was  not  a  demand,  made  in  the  name  of  justice,  but  a  forecast 
of  the  course  of  evolution. 

In  this  chapter  on  the  theory  of  value,  it  appears  that  Bern- 
stein has  knowledge  of  the  Austrian  theory  of  value  and  finds 
some  truth  in  it.  His  attitude  towards  it  aroused  the  ire  of  Karl 
Kautsky  and  perhaps  not  without  reason.  If  the  Austrian  theory, 
through  the  attention  called  to  it  by  Bernstein,  gains  adherents 
among  Socialists,  it  may  go  hard  with  the  Marxian  views  of 
value  and  distribution.  Bernstein,  it  may  be  remarked  in  this 
connection,  unlike  most  Socialists,  is  not  unwilling  to  learn  from 
the  "bourgeois"  economists  and  shows  acquaintance  with  their 
works. 

Before  the  appearance  of  the  third  volume  of  "Das  Kapital," 
a  large  part  of  economic  literature  conveyed  the  impression  that 
the  theory  of  surplus  value  was  the  essential  element  of  Marx- 
ism. Since  its  appearance,  and  the  confusion  it  has  wrought  in 
the  views  of  German  Socialists  on  value,  discussion  is  turning 
more  about  the  materialistic  conception  of  history,  and  this  is 
regarded  as  par  excellence  Marx's  contribution  to  Socialistic 
thought.  None  will  deny,  says  Bernstein,  that  the  most  funda- 
mental part  of  Marxism  is  its  theory  of  history.  With  it  the 
whole  system  stands  or  falls.  To  the  extent  that  it  is  subjected 
to  limitations  all  remaining  portions  are  affected.  Now  the 
question  as  to  the  truth  of  the  materialistic  conception  of  history, 
he  continues,  is  the  question  of  the  degree  of  historical  necessity. 
According  to  materialism  everything  is  the  result  of  necessary 
movements  of  matter,  everything  is  determined  and  a  link  in  the 
chain  of  causation.  The  materialist  is  a  Calvinist  without  God. 
Applied  to  history,  materialism  means  the  affirmation  of  the 
necessity  of  all  history.  The  only  question  the  materialist  need 
consider  is  through  what  channels  necessity  takes  its  course, 
what  part  must  be  assigned  to  nature,  what  to  economic  factors, 
to  legal  institutions,  or  to  man's  ideas.  Marx  considers  the 
productive  forces  and  organization  {die  materiellen  Produktiv- 
kr'dfte  u.  Produktionsverhaltnisse}  the  determining  factor. 


ii6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Engels,  however,  states  that  productive  forces  are  only  the  final 
cause.  The  mental  life  also  is  a  cause.  "The  political,  legal, 
philosophic,  religious,  literary  and  artistic  lines  of  develop- 
ment rest  on  the  economic.  But  they  all  react  on  one 
another  and  on  the  economic"  (Letter  of  Engels  in  Sozial- 
istischer  Akademiker,  October,  1895).  The  question  at  issue 
is  to  what  extent  non-economic  factors  control  history. 
The  economic  are  on  the  whole  predominant,  in  Bernstein's 
opinion,  but  mental  forces  are  controlling  life  to  an  increasing 
extent.  As  their  power  increases  a  change  takes  place  in  the 
sway  of  so-called  historic  necessity.  On  the  one  hand  we  have 
an  increasing  insight  into  the  laws  of  development,  and  especially 
of  economic  development,  and  on  the  other,  a  resulting  growth 
of  ability  to  direct  and  control  this  development.  Society  has 
greater  freedom  theoretically  with  reference  to  economic  factors 
than  at  any  time  before,  and  it  is  only  a  conflict  of  interests  that 
prevents  the  practical  realization  of  this  theoretic  freedom.  How- 
ever, the  common,  as  opposed  to  private,  interests,  are  gaining 
ground  and,  to  that  extent,  economic  forces  cease  to  be  elemental 
powers.  Their  development  is  anticipated  and,  therefore,  takes 
place  more  readily  and  rapidly.  Individuals  and  nations  are 
thus  withdrawing  an  ever  greater  proportion  of  their  life  from 
the  influence  of  a  necessity  acting  without  or  against  their  voli- 
tion. Necessity  is  less  absolute.  This  view  of  history,  which  he 
regards  as  the  developed  form  of  Marx's  thought,  Bernstein 
names  economic  conception,  in  preference  to  materialistic  con- 
ception. The  Marxian  theory  of  history,  unlike  philosophical 
materialism,  he  claims,  does  not  involve  determinism.  It  does 
not  attribute  to  economic  factors  absolute  power. 

This  view  of  Bernstein  seems  to  rest  on  a  misconception  of 
the  Marxian  system  of  thought.  Marx  certainly  was  a  deter- 
minist  and  Engels,  while  admitting  that  the  economic  factor  is 
only  final  cause,  did  not  intend  to  represent  it  as  one  of 
several  coordinate  causes,  nor  to  deny  necessity  in  the  action  of 
forces  other  than  the  economic.  Bernstein  in  his  "Vorausset- 
zungen"  looks  at  the  immediate  causes  of  historical  phenomena 
only.  These  may  indeed  be  predominantly  mental  or  ideal 
rather  than  economic.  Behind  these,  however,  according  to 
consistent  Marxism,  lie  others,  reaching  back  to  the  fundamental 
cause,  the  economic  factor,  the  productive  process.  By  lengthen- 
ing the  process  of  causation,  by  inserting  mental  forces  in  the 


SOCIALISM  117 

chain  that  extends  from  the  economic  condition  up  to  given 
historical  phenomena,  we  do  not  diminish  the  "degree  of  neces- 
sity." The  inserted  mental  forces  themselves  are  determined. 
They  are  a  part,  not  an  interruption,  of  the  chain  of  causation. 
It  may  be  questioned,  too,  whether  it  is  possible  to  conceive  of 
degrees  of  necessity.  In  philosophy,  Bernstein  is  clearly  not  a 
disciple  of  Marx.  It  may  be  stated,  however,  that  he  evades  or 
overlooks  the  philosophic  question,  the  problem  of  the  ultimate 
principle.  He  is,  in  fact,  not  preeminently  a  philosopher.  The 
fundamental  issue  between  mental  and  economic  forces,  in  the 
Marxian  view  of  history,  is  not  their  relative  weight  as  imme- 
diate causes  of  historical  events,  but  the  question  of  priority  in 
the  evolution  of  life.  From  the  beginning  of  human  life  they 
have  acted  and  developed  side  by  side.  The  question,  therefore, 
is  one  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  mind.  This  problem  of  origin, 
however,  is  not  one  that  Marxists  have  generally  recognized  as 
the  fundamental  one.  Marx  did  not  complete  his  system,  and 
Engels  only  partially  worked  out  a  philosophic  theory.  Woltmann 
appears  to  be  the  only  recent  Social  Democratic  writer  who  gives 
evidence  of  philosophical  training  and  has  attacked  the  funda- 
mental problem.  Claiming  that  Marx,  the  philosopher,  is  as 
great  if  not  greater  than  Marx  the  economist,  he  aims  to  show 
what  is  necessary  to  the  completion  of  his  system. 

In  the  confusion  prevailing  among  the  professed  followers  of 
Marx  and  in  the  mind  of  Bernstein,  it  is  difficult  to  state  pre- 
cisely how  widely  the  latter  has  diverged  from  the  true  Marxists 
in  the  field  of  philosophy.  It  is  noteworthy,  however,  that  he 
assigns  greater  .importance  to  ethical  ideals  as  forces  in  the 
Socialistic  movement  than  has  been  customary  among  German 
Socialists.  He  appeals  to  justice.  He  urges  the  need  of  a  moral 
elevation  of  the  proletariat.  His  teachings,  if  they  prevailed, 
would  give  a  tone  to  Social  Democratic  agitation  very  different 
from  that  which  it  has  received  from  Marx's  almost  contemp- 
tuous attitude  towards  ethical  considerations.  Bernstein's  ethical 
idealism  may  rest  on  feeling  rather  than  on  a  well-reasoned 
philosophy,  or  he  may  have  found  his  way  unconsciously  into 
the  current  of  a  new  philosophic  movement.  To  place  the  bases 
of  Marxism  in  the  crucible  of  criticism,  or  to  evolve  new  sys- 
tems of  thought  will  be  the  task  of  others  who  are  better  fitted, 
but  whatever  faith  one  may  have  in  the  mission  of  the  philoso- 
pher and  in  the  compelling  power  of  logic,  a  man  like  Bernstein 

10 


ii8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

is  certain  to  exert  a  more  immediate  and  obvious  influence  on  a 
political  movement  than  a  more  profound  and  less  popular 
thinker.  Bernstein's  idealistic  tendencies,  therefore,  may  yet 
prove  to  be  of  the  greatest  significance. 

Passing  now  to  problems  of  the  less  general  and  theoretic 
nature,  the  Marxian  diagnosis  of  modern  industrial  tendencies 
with  its  affirmation  of  an  irresistible  movement  toward  Socialism 
may  be  taken  up  first.  According  to  Marx,  Engels  and  the 
Erfurt  program,  capitalism  is  doomed  because  capital,  the  means 
of  appropriating  the  product  of  society,  is  falling  into  the  hands 
of  an  ever  smaller  number  of  great  capitalists,  while  the  con- 
centration of  industry  is  effecting  the  organization  of  the 
constantly  growing  proportion  of  rebellious  humanity  that  con- 
stitutes the  proletariat.  This  Bernstein  designates  the  theory  o'f 
collapse,  die  Zusammenbruchstheorie.  It  implies  that  the  middle 
classes  are  disappearing,  the  rich  diminishing,  and  the  poor 
growing  in  number.  Closely  related  to  it  is  the  so-called  Vere- 
lendungstheorie,  the  pauperization  theory,  which  holds  that  the 
masses  are  sinking  into  ever  deeper  poverty.  Bernstein's  argu- 
ment controverting  the  Zusammenbruchstheorie  has  proved 
especially  unpalatable  to  the  "old  school."  He  argues  first  that 
capital  is  not  falling  into  the  hands  of  a  diminishing  number  of 
capitalists.  The  corporate  organization  of  production  makes 
possible  a  wide  diffusion  of  capital  in  the  shape  of  stock  and 
bonds.  Immense  wealth  in  the  ownership  of  a  few  capitalists  is 
not  necessary  for  the  construction  of  large  business  units.  Capi- 
tal can  be  concentrated  by  bringing  together  the  holdings  of  a 
large  number  of  small  stockholders.  Control  over,  not  owner- 
ship of,  large  capital  is  necessary  to  the  captains  of  industry. 
Statistical  data  are  incomplete,  but  show  that  the  securities  of 
the  great  "trusts"  of  today  are  scattered  among  a  very  consider- 
able number  of  holders.  More  complete  evidence  that  the  prop- 
ertied classes  are  not  diminishing  in  number  can  be  obtained 
from  income  tax  statistics.  Not  only  are  the  propertied  classes 
not  diminishing,  Bernstein  concludes,  but  they  are  increasing 
both  absolutely  and  relatively. 

The  same  conclusion  can  be  reached  deductively.  Modern 
methods  of  production  have  brought  about  an  immense  increase 
in  the  per  capita  product.  It  is  not  possible  for  a  few  capitalists 
and  their  families  to  consume  all  of  this  increase.  Its  con- 
sumption can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  assumption  that  it 


SOCIALISM  119 

goes  either  to  the  proletariat  or  to  the  middle  classes.  It  is  the 
latter  that  in  Bernstein's  opinion  are  receiving  a  larger  share  of 
the  social  dividend.  If  the  proletariat,  beguiled  by  Marxian 
predictions,  expect  to  wait  until  the  great  capitalists  have  ruined 
the  lesser  ones  before  it  expropriates  the  entire  capitalist  class, 
it  must  content  itself  to  wait  an  indefinitely  long  time.  But, 
says  Bernstein,  it  is  time  to  abandon  the  superstition  that  the 
realization  of  Socialism  depends  on  the  concentration  of  capital 
in  the  ownership  of  a  few.  Whether  the  social  surplus  is  appro- 
priated by  ten  thousand  monopolists,  or  is  distributed  in  vari- 
ous amounts  among  half  a  million,  is  a  matter  of  indifference 
to  the  great  majority,  the  nine  or  ten  million  families  who  lose 
by  the  transaction. 

The  attack  on  the  theory  of  collapse  is  continued  by  statistical 
evidence  to  show  that  industry  is  not  becoming  consolidated  in 
large  concerns  at  a  very  rapid  rate.  Although  in  an  increasing 
number  of  industries  production  on  a  large  scale  is  displacing 
the  small  producer,  there  is  a  considerable  number  of  industries 
in  which  production  on  a  small  or  medium  scale  is  holding  its 
own.  Not  all  industries  develop  in  the  same  manner,  not  all 
are  destined  soon  to  become  centralized  in  a  few  immense 
organizations.  Manufactures  and  commerce  show  a  less  rapid 
centralization  than  socialistic  theorists  have  assumed.  In  agri- 
culture in  Europe,  and  in  part  in  America,  there  is  a  movement 
directly  counter  to  socialistic  predictions.  Large  farms  are  de- 
creasing in  number,  small  and  middle  sized  farms  are  increas- 
ing. It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  a  rapid  centralization  of 
production  is  gathering  together  as  a  wretched  proletariat  the 
great  mass  of  humanity,  organizing  men  as  producers  in  large 
workshops  and  on  large  farms  and  making  the  expropriation  of 
a  small  group  of  capitalists  antl  the  collective  management  of 
the  highly  centralized  economic  system  an  easy  and  inevitable 
matter. 

Somewhat  vague  expectations  of  a  collapse  of  capitalism  are, 
in  the  minds  of  German  Socialists,  associated  with  industrial 
crises.  These  hasten  the  ruin  of  the  small  capitalist  and  the 
disappearance  of  the  middle  class.  They  are  regarded  as 
ominous  indications  of  the  impossibility  of  capitalism,  of  its 
inability  to  control  its  own  productive  forces.  "The  contradic- 
tion inherent  in  the  movements  of  capitalist  society,"  wrote 
Marx  in  1873,  "impress  themselves  upon  the  practical  bourgeois 


120  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

most  strikingly  in  the  changes  of  the  periodic  cycle  through 
which  modern  industry  runs  and  whose  crowning  point  is  the 
universal  crisis.  That  crisis  is  once  again  approaching,  although 
it  is  but  yet  in  its  preliminary  stage."  The  extension  of  the 
world's  market,  Socialists  are  disposed  to  hold,  merely  increases 
the  scope  and  intensity  of  the  contradictions  of  capitalism. 
Engels  states  in  one  place  that  improved  methods  of  transpor- 
tation and  the  extension  of  the  field  open  to  investment  of  the 
excess  of  European  capital  have  weakened  the  tendencies  toward 
a  crisis,  but  later  remarks  that  all  factors  striving  to  prevent  a 
repetition  of  former  experiences  are  merely  preparatory  to  a 
greater  crash.  The  time  between  crises  has  lengthened,  but  the 
delay  of  the  next  crisis  indicates  the  coming  of  a  universal  crash 
of  unparalleled  violence.  Another  possibility,  however,  admitted 
by  Engels,  is  that  the  periodic  appearance  of  acute  distress  will 
give  way  to  a  more  chronic  trouble,  short  periods  of  slight 
improvement  in  business  being  followed  by  long,  indecisive 
periods  of  depression.  In  the  years  that  have  elapsed  since 
Engels  wrote,  his  expectations  have  not  been  fulfilled.  There 
are  no  indications,  remarks  Bernstein,  of  a  great  catastrophe, 
nor  can  business  prosperity  be  characterized  as  especially  short- 
lived. There  is  a  third  possibility.  The  extension  of  the  market, 
the  increasing  facility  of  transportation  and  communication,  may 
equalize  or  diffuse  disturbances,  while  the  increased  wealth  of 
industrial  countries,  the  greater  elasticity  of  credit,  and  the  action 
of  trusts  may  diminish  the  action  of  local  and  special  disturb- 
ances on  the  general  course  of  industry.  General  crises  in  that 
case  need  not  be  expected  for  years  to  come.  Reckless  specu- 
lation is  less  certain  to  make  trouble  now  than  in  the  past. 
Speculation  is  determined  by  the  proportion  of  knowable  to 
unknowable  factors.  It  is  most  dangerously  active  when  l.he 
unknown  plays  a  large  part,  as  at  the  beginning  of  the  capital- 
istic era,  in  new  countries,  and  in  new  industries.  The  older 
the  use  of  modern  methods  in  any  industry  the  weaker  is  the 
speculative  element.  The  movements  of  the  market  are  better 
known,  its  changes  more  accurately  estimated.  Of  course,  com- 
petition and  the  possible  appearance  of  inventions  preclude  an 
absolute  control  of  the  market,  and,  in  some  degree,  overpro- 
duction is  inevitable.  Overproduction  in  a  few  industries  is, 
however,  not  synonymous  with  general  crisis.  To  lead  to  a 
general  crisis  the  industries  immediately  affected  must  be  such 


SOCIALISM  121 

large  consumers  of  the  products  of  other  industries  that  their 
suspension  causes  a  widespread  stoppage,  or  the  effect  on  the 
money  market  must  be  such  as  to  result  in  a  general  paralysis 
of  business.  It  stands  to  reason,  however,  that  the  greater  the 
wealth  of  a  country  and  the  stronger  its  organization  of  credit, 
the  less  is  the  likelihood  of  disturbances  in  a  few  industries 
bringing  about  a  general  crisis.  Bernstein  concludes  in  regard  to 
the  possibility  of  avoiding  crises  that  the  problem  cannot  be 
solved  at  present.  We  can  only  point  to  what  forces  tend  toward 
a  breakdown,  and  what  forces  tend  to  prevent  it.  What  the 
resultant  will  be  we  do  not  know.  Local  and  partial  depressions 
are  inevitable.  Unforeseen  external  factors,  such  as  wars  or  an 
unusually  widespread  failure  of  crops,  may  cause  a  universal 
industrial  crisis,  but,  aside  from  such  possibilities,  there  is  no 
conclusive  reason  for  expecting  a  general  stoppage  of  the  world's 
industry.  Socialists  need  base  no  hopes  upon  a  universal  crash. 
A  condition  precedent  to  the  accomplishment  of  Socialism, 
according  to  German  Socialists,  is  the  crushing  out  of  the  small 
manufacturer  and  farmer  and  the  centralization  of  industry. 
This  is  to  be  the  mission  of  capitalism.  Capitalists,  in  short,  are 
to  organize  production  and  then  to  be  turned  out  by  the  prole- 
tariat. The  latter  is  to  gain  control  of  the  government  while 
the  work  of  the  capitalistic  consolidation  is  still  proceeding.  As, 
however,  the  centralization  of  production  is  taking  place  rather 
slowly,  Bernstein  argues,  it  will  be  a  long  time  ere  the  govern- 
ment can  undertake  the  management  of  all  industry.  It  could 
not  deal  with  the  enormous  number  of  small  and  middle-sized 
producing  concerns.  The  proletarian  state  would,  therefore,  be 
obliged  to  leave  their  management  in  the  hands  of  their  present 
capitalist  owners,  or,  if  it  insisted  on  turning  these  out,  to 
entrust  all  productive  concerns  to  cooperative  organizations  of 
laborers.  It  is  mainly  through  the  gradual  extension  of  co- 
operations, not  through  the  assumption  of  direct  control  of  all 
production  by  a  central  political  power,  that  Bernstein  expects 
to  see  the  Socialist's  ideal  fulfilled.  In  this  he  departs  widely 
from  Marx  and  the  old-school  Social  Democrats.  If  Socialism 
is  to  be  the  work  of  the  cooperative  movement  it  will  be  long 
in  coming.  Productive  cooperation,  Bernstein  points  out  in  an 
especially  interesting  chapter,  has  made  but  slow  progress.  Dis- 
tributive cooperation  has  been  successful.  Socialists  have  not 
generally  been  very  eager  advocates  of  such  organizations  of 


122  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

buyers.  Bernstein,  however,  holds  that  their  work  is  well  worth 
doing.  They  serve  to  retain  in  the  hands  of  the  laboring  class  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  social  dividend  that  otherwise  would 
be  diverted  to  the  middleman's  profit  and  would  thus  strengthen 
the  position  of  the  propertied  classes.  The  large  profits  gained 
by  such  organizations  in  England  show  that  the  Socialistic  doc- 
trine that  the  laborer  is  exploited  as  producer  rather  than  as 
consumer  must  suffer  considerable  limitation.  Productive  co- 
operation has  achieved  less.  The  larger  concerns  that  tried  it 
usually  failed  to  secure  able  leadership  and  discipline  among  the 
workers.  Democracy  in  the  workshop  is  a  failure  when  the 
scale  of  operation  is  large.  The  idea  that  the  modern  factory 
trains  the  laborer  for  cooperative  work  is  erroneous.  The  most 
successful  cooperative  producing  concerns  are  those  that  are 
financed  by  some  trades  union  or  some  organization  of  consum- 
ers and  thus  are  producing,  not  primarily  for  the  profit  of  their 
own  employees,  but  for  some  larger  body,  of  which  their  em- 
ployees are,  or  may  become,  members.  It  is  by  such  combination, 
with  distributive  cooperation,  that  productive  cooperation  may 
yet  prove  its  feasibility.  It  has  a  future,  but  necessarily  its 
development  will  be  slow.  In  agriculture  the  problem  of  making 
the  laborers  capitalists  and  of  organizing  them  as  a  democracy 
of  cooperating  producers  is  especially  difficult,  and  yet  it  is  a 
problem  the  Social  Democratic  Party  cannot  afford  to  neglect. 

The  first  condition  upon  which,  in  the  Marxian  program,  the 
realization  of  collectivism  depends  is  the  centralization  of  indus- 
try. A  second  condition  is  the  seizure  of  the  supreme  political 
power  by  the  proletariat.  This  step  may  be  taken  by  legal  means 
or  by  violence.  Marx  and  Engels,  until  late  in  life,  were  disposed 
to  think  that  some  violent  measures  would  be  necessary.  There 
are  Socialists  who  are  still  of  this  opinion.  Violence  is,  at  least, 
often  declared  to  do  quicker  work.  The  thought  that  the  labor- 
ing class  is  numerically  the  strongest  easily  suggests  that  it  can 
force  itself  into  power  and  at  once  effect  a  radical  change. 
Those  who  derive  no  income  from  property  or  privilege  con- 
stitute indeed  the  majority  in  all  advanced  countries,  but  this 
"proletariat,"  Bernstein  points  out,  consists  of  very  diverse  ele- 
ments. They  may,  under  the  existing  system,  have  common  or 
similar  interests,  but,  if  the  present  propertied  and  ruling  classes 
were  once  deposed,  differences  in  interests  would  soon  appear. 
The  modern  wage-earners  are  not  the  homogeneous  mass  sug- 


SOCIALISM  123 

gested  by  Marxian  phraseology.  In  the  most  advanced  industrial 
centers  especially  there  exists  the  greatest  differentiation.  Diver- 
sity of  occupation  and  income  result  in  diversity  of  character. 
Even  if  the  industrial  workers  were  not  thus  broken  up  into 
groups  of  differing  interests,  there  are  other  dissimilar  classes, 
such  as  public  officials,  commercial  employees  and  agricultural 
laborers.  The  employees  of  factories  and  house  industries  con- 
stitute in  Germany  less  than  half  of  those  engaged  in  earning 
a  livelihood.  The  remaining  classes  include  the  greatest  social 
contrasts.  In  the  rural  districts  there  is  no  evidence  of  a  class 
consciousness  or  of  a  class  struggle  such  as  that  waged  by  the 
organized  factory  laborer  with  his  capitalist  employer.  To  the 
majority  of  agricultural  laborers  socialization  of  production  can 
be  little  more  than  an  unmeaning  phrase.  Their  cherished  hope 
is  to  become  landowners.  Even  among  factory  workers  the 
desire  for  collectivism  is  not  universal.  There  has  been  a  steady 
increase  of  votes  cast  for  the  Social  Democratic  party,  but  not 
all  of  these  voters  are  Socialists.  In  Germany,  the  country  in 
which  the  party  has  made  its  greatest  advance,  Social  Democratic 
voters  number  somewhat  less  than  half  of  the  industrial  workers. 
Over  one-half,  therefore,  of  this  class  are  indifferent  or  hostile 
to  Socialism.  It  is  still  a  far  cry  to  the  day  predicted  by  Marx 
and  Engels  when  a  united  proletariat,  conscious  of  its  mission, 
deposes  the  few  capitalists  still  remaining,  and  inaugurates  an 
era  in  which  there  shall  be  no  classes  and  no  class  wars. 

To  exercise  the  hoped  for  "dictatorship,"  the  proletariat, 
Bernstein  holds,  is  not  yet  sufficiently  matured.  Unless  work- 
ingmen  themselves  have  developed  strong  economic  organiza- 
tions, and  through  training  in  self-governing  bodies  have  attained 
a  high  degree  of  self-reliance,  the  rule  of  the  proletariat  would 
be  the  rule  of  petty  orators  and  litterateurs.  There  is  a  cant  in 
regard  to  the  virtues  and  possibilities  of  the  laborer  against 
which  Bernstein  earnestly  protests.  Socialistic  hackwriters  and 
demagogues  have  given  a  thoroughly  false  picture  of  the  class. 
The  working-man  is  neither  the  pauperized  wretch  some  Social- 
istic phrases  depict,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  is  he  completely  free 
from  prejudices  and  foibles.  He  has  the  virtues  and  vices  inci- 
dent to  his  economic  and  social  position.  These  cannot  change 
in  a  day.  The  most  sweeping  evolution  can  raise  the  general 
level  of  a  nation  only  a  little.  Economic  conditions  enter  into 
consideration.  Engels  confesses  that  not  until  what  would 


124  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

today  be  considered  a  very  high  development  of  productive 
capacity  has  been  reached,  can  the  total  product  be  so  large  that 
the  abolition  of  classes  would  not  result  disastrously.  Mean- 
while, Bernstein  urges,  the  proletarian  needs  to  cherish  the 
homely  virtues  of  thrift  and  industry.  The  cheap  contempt  for 
what  they  style  "the  bourgeois  virtues"  affected  by  Socialist  lit- 
terateurs is  fortunately  not  entertained  by  the  leaders  of  the 
trades  union  and  cooperative  movement.  For  these  organizations 
the  shiftless,  homeless  proletarian  is  poor  material.  It  is  not 
surprising  that  in  England  so  many  labor  leaders,  whether  Social- 
ists or  not,  favor  the  temperance  movement.  Everything  tend- 
ing to  confuse  the  moral  sense  of  the  worker  is  an  injury  to  the 
cause  of  labor.  It  is  deplorable,  therefore,  that  part  of  the  labor 
press  affects  the  tone  of  the  literary  decadents.  A  class  that  is 
striving  to  rise  needs  a  vigorous  morality,  not  cynicism.  The 
proletariat  needs  an  ideal.  The  view  that  material  factors  are 
omnipotent,  that  they  alone  can  lead  to  a  better  social  order,  is 
false. 

Democracy  is  both  means  and  end  of  the  Socialistic  move- 
ment— industrial  democracy  in  the  trades  union  and  cooperative 
movement,  and  political  democracy,  through  legislation,  aiming 
to  realize  the  same  ideals.  Democracy,  Bernstein  states,  implies 
the  absence  of  class  oppression.  It  is  not  the  tyranny  of  the 
proletariat  mob  over  other  classes.  The  fears  of  its  revolu- 
tionary tendencies  felt  by  conservatives  prove  to  be  groundless 
as  democracy  develops.  It  is  only  at  the  beginning  of  democratic 
movements  that  conservatives  are  chilled  and  radicals  cheered  by 
visions  of  blood  and  flame.  The  majority  will  not  oppress  the 
minority,  because  the  majority  of  today  may  be  the  minority  of 
tomorrow.  Nor  can  democracy  perform  miracles  of  rapid 
reform.  Kings  and  ministers  of  state  have  often  moved  faster 
than  the  governments  of  the  most  democratic  countries.  The 
latter  have  the  advantage  of  not  being  subject  to  reaction.  They 
go  steadily,  though  often  very  slowly,  forward  in  the  direction  of 
the  ideal.  Much  already  has  been  accomplished.  The  material 
condition  of  the  laboring  class  has  been  improved.  Exploita- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  capitalist  is  being  checked.  Class  privi- 
leges are  being  abolished.  The  proletarian  is  made  a  citizen  and 
gradually  raised  to  the  level  of  the  bourgeois.  There  is  a  great 
movement  that  is  reconstructing  society  and  realizing  Socialistic 
ideals  as  they  become  practicable.  This  movement,  in  Bernstein's 


SOCIALISM  125 

mind,  ought  to  be  the  chief  care  of  the  Socialist.  The  collec- 
tivist  goal  is  in  comparison  a  matter  of  indifference. 

The  Social  Democratic  party  ought  not  needlessly  to  antag- 
onize classes  other  than  the  proletariat.  The  opposition  of  these 
classes  would  delay  the  achievement  of  that  political  democracy 
that  must  precede  the  realization  of  social  democracy.  Germany 
is  not  yet  democratic  in  the  political  sense.  Some  Socialists 
would  object  that  German  institutions  cannot  be  reformed  except 
through  violence,  inasmuch  as  the  German  bourgeoisie  is  grow- 
ing more  reactionary.  For  the  time  being  this  may  be  the  case, 
although  there  are  many  facts  pointing  to  the  contrary  view.  It 
cannot  long  continue  to  be  true.  What  is  called  the  bourgeoisie 
is  of  a  composite  character.  Its  diverse  elements  can  be  fused 
into  a  reactionary  mass  only  through  their  fear  of  social  democ- 
racy as  their  common  enemy.  Some  bourgeois  behold  in  the 
Socialistic  party  a  menace  to  their  material  welfare,  others  an 
enemy  to  religion,  other  still  oppose  it  on  patriotic  grounds  as 
the  party  of  revolution.  Such  fears  ought  not  to  exist.  The 
leaders  of  the  Social  Democracy  ought  to  make  it  plain  that  it 
does  not  menace  all  and  that  it  has  no  fondness  for  violent 
measures.  Many  of  the  bourgeoisie  feel  an  economic  pressure 
that  might  lead  them  to  make  common  cause  with  the  .working 
class,  but  they  are  repelled  by  violent  utterances. 

Let  the  Social  Democratic  Party,  Bernstein  urges,  appear  in 
its  true  colors  as  a  party  of  socialistic  reform.  Let  it  discard 
its  revolutionary  phraseology.  Let  it  be  consistent.  Its  efforts 
for  immediate  and  partial  reforms  are  not  consistent  with  the 
expectation  of  a  great  smashing  of  the  present  industrial  order. 
Socialism  will  not  come  all  in  a  moment  amidst  scenes  of  horror. 
There  will  be  no  sudden  rising  of  enslaved  masses  against  a 
handful  of  capitalist  tyrants.  If  such  were  in  truth  to  be  the 
coming  of  Socialism,  it  would  be  folly  for  the  party  not  to 
promote  in  every  way  the  accumulation  of  capital  and  power  in 
the  hands  of  the  few  instead  of  proposing  the  exact  reverse,  as 
it  does,  for  example,  in  its  policy  regarding  taxation.  Socialism, 
however,  will  be  attained  gradually;  its  blessings  will  not  be 
withheld  from  mankind  until  the  great  day  of  wrath  of  the 
proletariat.  Whatever  its  cant  may  indicate,  the  party  is  today 
a  party  of  reform,  not  of  revolution.  Recent  occurrences  prove 
this.  Bebel,  one  of  the  old  school,  with  reference  to  recent 
anarchistic  plots,  protested  earnestly  against  the  idea  that  the 


126  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

party  approved  of  violence.  All  the  party  papers  quoted  approv- 
ingly. Not  one  dissented.  Kautsky^  also  of  the  old  school, 
makes  suggestions,  in  his  work  on  the  agrarian  question,  that 
are  entirely  in  the  direction  of  democratic  reforms.  The  muni- 
cipal program  adopted  by  Social  Democrats  at  Brandenburg  is 
one  of  democratic  reform.  The  representatives  of  the  party  in 
the  Reichstag  have  expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  boards  of 
arbitration  as  a  means  of  securing  industrial  peace.  In  Stutt- 
gart Social  Democrats  joined  with  a  bourgeois  democratic  group 
to  form  a  fusion  ticket.  In  other  towns  in  Wiirttemberg  their 
example  has  been  followed.  Socialistic  trades  unions  are  advo- 
cating the  establishment  of  municipal  employment  bureaus  repre- 
senting employer  and  employee.  In  several  cities,  Hamburg  and 
Elberfeld  for  instance,  Socialists  and  trades  unionists  have 
formed  societies  for  cooperative  distribution.  Everywhere  it  is  a 
movement  for  reform,  for  democracy,  for  social  progress. 

Bernstein  is  opposed  to  the  anti-national  attitude  of  his  party. 
The  oft-quoted  statement  of  the  "Communistic  Manifesto"  that 
the  proletarian  has  no  fatherland  he  declares  to  be  false.  It 
may  have  been  true  of  the  proletarian  of  the  forties  who  was 
without  political  rights,  it  is  not  true  of  the  working  man  of 
today.  There  are  national  interests,  the  importance  of  which,  in 
his  enthusiasm  for  a  cosmopolitan  labor  movement,  the  Socialist 
should  not  disregard.  If  the  Social  Democratic  Party  gets  into 
power  it  will  need  a  foreign  policy.  The  party  rightly  objects 
to  the  irresponsibility  of  the  executive  in  foreign  affairs.  It  is 
in  favor  of  international  arbitration ;  but  it  ought  not  to  sacrifice 
national  interests.  Germany,  for  instance,  has  interests  in  China 
and  should  be  in  a  position  to  defend  them.  In  an  article  in 
the  Sozialistische  Montashefte,  it  may  be  added,  Bernstein  gives 
a  qualified  approval  to  a  policy  of  expansion,  even  conceding 
under  certain  circumstances  a  right  of  conquest. 

From  the  above  summary  of  Bernstein's  views  it  appears 
that  he  is  not  an  orthodox  Marxist.  He  is  still  a  Socialist  and, 
in  a  sense,  a  believer  in  the  class  conflict,  although  hoping  that 
in  the  future  this  conflict  will  be  waged  with  less  bitterness  and 
always  by  legal  means.  He  cannot  be  called  the  originator  of 
an  entirely  new  movement  within  the  Social  Democratic  Party. 
In  rejecting  the  materialism  he  was  preceded  by  Konrad  Schmidt 
(in  Sozialistischer  Akademiker,  1896),  the  first  apparently 
among  German  Marxists  to  urge  a  return  to  a  Kantian  stand- 


SOCIALISM  127 

point  in  philosophy,  a  movement  that  now  has  a  respectable 
following  among  German  Socialists.  The  pauperization  theory 
received  severe  criticism  from  Bruno  Schonlank  a  few  years 
ago,  and  seems  at  best  to  have  had  only  a  weak  hold  on  the 
better  informed  members  of  the  party.  In  his  protests  against 
violence  Bernstein  has  many  predecessors,  among  them  Engels 
and,  in  a  degree,  Marx  himself.  That  agriculture  was  not  fully 
bearing  out  Marxian  predictions  in  regard  to  centralization  of 
production,  and  that  special  tactics  were  necessary  in  agitating 
for  Socialism  in  the  rural  districts,  had  not  altogether  escaped 
the  notice  of  the  party  leaders.  In  urging  a  conciliatory  policy 
towards  classes  other  than  the  proletariat  and  towards  other 
political  parties,  Bernstein  had  the  example  of  Georg  von  Voll- 
mar,  leader  of  the  Bavarian  Socialists.  In  fact,  the  "compro- 
mise" or  "opportunist"  policy,  the  policy  of  temporary  coalitions 
with  other  parties,  has  of  late  been  seriously  agitated  in  the 
leading  countries  of  the  continent.  It  is  of  course  bitterly  op- 
posed by  the  grim,  old  agitators  of  the  class  conflict.  In  Bel- 
gium, however,  Socialists  have  combined  with  Liberals  against 
Clericals ;  in  France  the  Socialist  Millerand  is  a  member  of  the 
cabinet  under  a  "bourgeois"  government ;  in  Austria  Social  Dem- 
ocrats and  Liberals  have  together  been  trying  to  hold  back 
Christian  Social  Conservatives,  and  in  Bavaria  Social  Democrats 
have  combined  with  the  Catholic  party  against  so-called  Liberals. 
A  change  is  taking  place  in  the  attitude  of  European  Socialists. 
Socialistic  parties  are  no  longer  so  exclusively  the  champions 
of  the  proletariat,  nor  the  irreconcilable  enemies  of  other  classes 
and  parties.  Meanwhile  misgivings  in  regard  to  doctrinal  mat- 
ters are  appearing  even  among  the  Marx-ridden  Socialists  of 
Germany,  and  almost  every  tenet  of  the  Social  Democratic  faith 
has  suffered  some  limitation. 

Why  then  did  Bernstein's  calm  and  scholarly  articles  call 
forth  such  bitter  attacks?  His  only  important  addition  to  the 
heresies  troubling  the  "old"  school  was  the  demonstration  of  the 
persistence  of  the  middle  class.  In  this  there  was  nothing  new, 
of  course,  to  the  bourgeois  economists.  To  Marxists  it  was 
perhaps  a  disagreeable  novelty.  The  bitterness  of  the  contro- 
versy arouses  the  suspicion  that  personal  rivalries  among  leaders 
and  would-be  leaders  have  envenomed  the  discussion.  Much 
also  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  Marxism  is  to  many  a  religion, 
an  object  of  faith,  in  whose  defense  they  will  fight.  Bernstein 


128  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

representing  the  scientific,  critical  spirit,  naturally  arouses  their 
anger.  The  controversy  grows  out  of  differences  of  tempera- 
ment. The  two  schools,  the  old  and  the  new,  the  grim,  old 
irreconcilables,  Kautsky,  Liebknecht,  Bebel,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  more  modern  and  practical  Bernstein,  Vollmer,  David,  Heine, 
Auer,  and  Schippel  on  the  other,  are  affected  differently  by 
current  political  and  industrial  events.  The  Kaiser's  speeches 
and  the  blunders  of  the  government  are  enough  to  keep  an 
irascible  nature  like  Kautsky's  stirred  to  constant  fury  against 
government  and  bourgeoisie.  At  the  time  the  controversy  arose 
the  government's  ill-advised  attempts  to  secure  Draconian  legis- 
lation against  criticism  of  religion,  monarchy,  the  family  and 
private  property,  was  still  being  discussed.  Kautsky  sees  in  such 
attempts  proof  of  the  incurably  reactionary  character  of  the 
present  government  and  ruling  classes.  Bernstein  regards  them 
as  merely  a  passing  phase,  a  bubble  floating  on  the  great  current 
setting  towards  democracy.  Kautsky  cannot  reconcile  himself 
to  the  admission  into  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of  elements 
other  than  the  proletarian.  Writing  in  the  Neue  Zeit,  just 
before  the  party  convention  of  1899,  he  pointed  to  two  tendencies 
within  the  party,  the  proletarian  and  the  democratic.  The  ap- 
proaching convention,  he  maintained,  would  have  to  choose  be- 
tween them.  If  the  democratic  tendency  for  which  Bernstein 
stood  prevailed,  the  proletariat,  although  still  occupying  the 
leading  position,  would  not  be  carrying  out  an  independent  class 
policy,  and  a  split  would  soon  appear  in  the  party.  At  about 
the  same  time,  an  article  by  Bernstein  appeared  in  the  Vorwarts, 
in  which  he  proposed  to  change  the  clause  in  the  Erfurt  pro- 
program  stating  that  Socialism  can  be  brought  about  only  by  the 
proletariat  (kann  nur  das  Werk  der  Arbeiterklasse  sein)  to 
must  be  mainly  the  task  of  the  proletariat  (muss  in  erster  Lime, 
etc.). 

The  question  to  which  Kautsky  expected  a  definite  answer 
at  the  convention  received  but  an  ambiguous  reply.  Resolutions 
brought  in  by  Bebel,  adopted  by  the  convention,  and  subscribed 
by  Bernstein  and  his  followers,  permit  coalitions  with  other 
political  parties  on  special  occasions.  They  also  declare  that  the 
party  maintains  a  neutral  attitude  towards  the  cooperative  move- 
ment, but  attributes  no  great  importance  to  it.  These  are  con- 
cessions to  the  Bernstein  wing.  This  group  desired  more,  no 
doubt,  but,  in  any  case,  the  resolutions  are  as  far  removed  from 


SOCIALISM  129 

Marxism  as  from  Bernsteinism.  Bebel  declared  himself  pleased 
that  by  subscribing  to  the  resolutions  the  erring  Bernstein  had 
returned  to  the  fold.  That  the  old  fears  of  the  party,  however, 
had  yielded  somewhat  to  the  new  movement  is  revealed  by  the 
action  of  a  few  extreme  Marxists  who  refused  their  assent  to 
the  resolutions. 

Recent  events  and  present  tendencies  give  some  ground  for 
the  expectation  that  Social  Democracy  on  the  continent  will 
become  a  democratic  rather  than  a  purely  proletarian  movement. 
If  such  proves  to  be  the  case,  if  the  party  no  longer  represents 
one  class,  it  must  become  moderate  and  lay  less  stress  on  class 
war.  Then,  perhaps,  as  some  have  suggested,  the  most  bitter 
outbreaks  of  class  conflict  will  take  place,  not  in  the  political 
arena,  but  in  the  struggle  between  trades  union  and  employer. 
With  strong  social  reform  parties  representing  the  common 
people  in  local  and  national  politics,  and  with  vigorous  trades 
unions  and  cooperative  societies,  the  social  movement  on  the 
continent  may  come  to  resemble  more  closely  than  before  that 
of  the  great  English-speaking  democracies.  In  any  case,  the 
practical  tone  of  English  Socialists,  of  the  French  possibilists, 
and  the  Bernstein  wing  of  the  German  Social  Democracy,  indi- 
cates that  the  best  talent  in  the  service  of  the  Socialistic  cause 
today  is  opposed  to  violence  and  to  class  hatred,  and  is 
comparatively  moderate  in  its  expectations  and  methods. 


Arena.     24: 129-144.     August,  1900 

Natural  Selection,  Competition,  and  Socialism. 

Herman  Whitaker 

Of  late  years  a  decided  change  has  taken  place  in  the  nature 
of  the  criticisms  directed  against  the  Socialist  philosophy.  The 
objections  now  being  brought  forward  are  mainly  biological. 
The  change  is  partly  due  to  the  prowess  displayed  by  the  Social- 
ist economists  in  defense  of  their  theories,  and  partly  to  their 
unanswerable  criticisms  of  the  existing  social  order.  Their 
antagonists  have  been  compelled  to  adopt  a  new  line  of  attack. 
The  battle  has  been  shifted  from  the  field  of  economics  to  that 
of  biology.  The  brief  for  the  defense  has  been  handed  over  to 
the  biologist. 


I3o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Whatever  judgment  current  opinion  may  pass  upon  the 
Socialist  philosophy  as  a  whole,  it  must  certainly  be  admitted 
that  in  the  field  of  pure  economics  the  Socialists  have  more  than 
held  their  own.  And  this  might  have  been  expected.  Political 
economy  is  the  science  of  human  affairs ;  it  treats  of  the  pro- 
duction and  distribution  of  wealth,  states  the  economic  laws  that 
govern  the  production  and  exchange  of  commodities,  and  tries 
to  reduce  the  business  of  society  to  an  orderly  basis.  Just  as  the 
careful  housewife  adjusts  her  expenditures  to  her  income,  so  the 
economist  endeavors  to  influence  legislation  to  like  ends.  The 
orthodox  political  economist  is,  therefore,  essaying  the  impossible. 
He  is  trying  to  build  up  an  orderly  synthesis  from  a  disorderly 
aggregation  of  objects;  and,  as  a  correct  line  of  reasoning  de- 
pends upon  the  establishment  of  an  exact  correspondence  be- 
tween thought  and  things,  his  efforts  must  necessarily  prove 
futile.  The  systems  of  production  and  distribution  must  first  be 
brought  into  harmonious  arrangement  before  a  true  science  of 
political  economy  can  obtain. 

The  Socialist  economists,  on  the  other  hand,  have  made  a 
complete  analysis  of  the  present  system.  In  their  investigations 
of  the  nature  of  value  they  laid  hold  of  the  only  property  pos- 
sessed by  a  commodity  that  could,  under  a  reasonable  system, 
serve  as  a  measure  of  value.  .Starting  with  the  fundamental 
proposition  that  labor  creates  all  exchange  value,  they  have 
elaborated  a  logical  science  of  political  economy.  It  is  therefore 
not  at  all  surprising  to  see  the  orthodox  economists  retiring  from 
a  contest  in  which  they  must  necessarily  be  worsted. 

Perhaps,  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge,  a  complete 
answer  to  the  biological  objections  to  Socialism  cannot  be  given. 
Experiment  alone  is  capable  of  furnishing  the  final  answer. 
There  is,  however,  a  provisional  answer  which  can  cover  all  but 
the  theoretical  objection.  The  argument  of  the  biological  critics, 
briefly  stated,  is  as  follows :  The  Socialist  philosophy  though 
apparently  logical  and  consistent  when  judged  from  an  eco- 
nomic standpoint,  is  in  contradiction  to  the  laws  of  life.  Its 
exponents  are  fruitlessly  contending  against  a  law  of  nature; 
they  are  founding  their  social  structures  on  beds  of  sand.  Man 
reached  his  preeminent  position  in  the  animal  kingdom,  the 
biologist  argues,  by  reason  of  his  cunning,  his  ferocity,  and_his 
imitativeness.  In  the  struggle  for  the  existence,  these  qualities — 
which  he  shares  in  common  with  the  tiger  and  the  ape — have 


SOCIALISM  131 

served  him  well;  they  have  made  him  the  superb  animal  he  is. 
His  prehensile  thumb,  his  curiosity,  the  ferocity  with  which  he 
resents  injury,  his  sociability,  and  his  wonderful  capacity  for 
seizing  anything  that  will  help  him  in  the  struggle  for  existence 
have  secured  his  primacy  and  made  him  the  lord  of  creation. 

The  physical  and  mental  characteristics  that  distinguish  man 
from  all  other  animals  are  the  accumulated  results  of  a  process 
of  natural  selection  continued  through  long  periods  of  time. 
Originally,  they  were  simply  favorable  variations,  brought  into 
existence  by  a  happy  combination  of  the  sexual  characters  of 
parents — the  results  of  a  process  of  sexual  selection.  The  indi- 
viduals in  which  these  favorable  variations  were  developed  to 
the  highest  degree  would  be  most  favored  in  the  struggle  for 
existence,  and  accordingly  would  survive  and  reproduce  their 
kind.  Of  their  offspring,  those  in  which  the  favorable  variations 
were  again  the  most  prominent  would  survive ;  and  so,  by  adding 
the  variations  together,  generation  after  generation,  natural 
selection  would  eventually  produce  them  fully  developed  as 
exhibited  in  man.  Therefore,  says  the  biologist,  since  the  qual- 
ities that  secured  for  man  his  primacy  among  animals  are  the 
accumulated  results  of  a  selective  process  that  preserved  the 
individual  possessing  them  in  the  highest  degree,  he  will  retain 
that  primacy  just  so  long  as  the  selective  principle  continues  to 
operate;  but  any  lessening  of  the  rigid  selection  will  be  instantly 
followed  by  degeneration,  and  ultimately  by  extinction. 

In  the  course  of  social  evolution,  continues  the  biologist,  the 
old  form  of  natural  selection — which  simply  secured  the  survival 
of  the  physically  fit — took  on  a  new  form.    It  changed  to  indus- 
trial competition,  which  secures  the  survival  of  the  kind  of  man 
best  suited   for  the  building  up  of   a  civilized  society.     Brute 
force  gives  way  to  intellect,  and  ferocity  to  cunning ;  but  the  old 
struggle  for  existence — caused  by  the  fecundity  of  Nature — still 
goes   on.     Socialism,  therefore,   says  the  critic,   is   suicidal.     It 
proposes  to~abolfsrT Industrial  competition,  which  is  at  the  same\ 
time  the  form   of  the   struggle   for  existence  that  created  the    \ 
organization    of    the    social    structure    upon    which    Socialism 
depends  for  its  existence,  and  the  incentive  that  moves  to  action  J 
the  units  of  society. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  at  issue :  is  industrial  competition  the 
selective  principle  that  created  our  society?  The  Socialist  says 
no.  Such  a  theory  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  fact  that  in  all 


132  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

countries  man  progressed  from  a  low  to  a  high  type  before  the 
advent  of  industrial  competition,  or  that  in  some  countries  a  high 
degree  of  civilization  has  been  reached  without  its  aid.  In  his 
opinion,  industrial  competition  is  an  injurious  product  of  modern 
times.  He  asserts,  moreover,  that  its  tendency  is  to  lower, the 
mental,  moral,  and  physical  standards  of  the  race,  to  cripple  the 
consuming  power  of  the  community,  and  to  lower  the  scale  of 
living;  and  that  eventually  it  will,  if  allowed  to  pursue  an  unre- 
stricted course,  involve  both  capitalist  and  laborer  in  a  common 
ruin. 

The  critics  of  Socialism,  in  answering  this  indictment, 
acknowledge  the  cruelty  of  competition  regarded  from  an  indi- 
vidual standpoint — but  nevertheless  maintain  that  it  is  necessary 
and  inevitable,  and  that  the  ultimate  good  derived  from  its  oper- 
ation far  outweighs  the  present  evil.  The  form  of  the  struggle 
for  existence  that  obtained  in  medieval  times  might,  in  their 
opinion,  have  been  continued  forever  without  the  production  of 
the  kind  of  man  required  for  the  building  up  of  a  highly-organ- 
ized society;  that  if  continued  forever  it  could  only  have  pro- 
duced a  more  gigantic  knight — an  exaggerated  Coeur  de  Leon. 
They  do  not  believe  that  any  analogy  exists  between  civilized 
societies  of  today  and  the  mushroom  civilizations  of  the  past. 
These  latter,  they  assert,  were  simply  the  last  stages  of  a  patri- 
archal system  in  which  a  small  class,  after  subjugating  the 
remaining  members  of  their  society,  had  taken  to  themselves  all 
the  knowledge  and  culture  of  their  times.  These  civilizations 
were  based  on  chattel  slavery;  as  President  Jordan  of  Stanford 
very  aptly  puts  it,  "the  physical  perfection  and  culture  of  each 
Greek  were  made  possible  by  the  labor  of  ten  slaves." 

A  comparison  will  show  that  no  analogy  exists,  says  the 
biologist.  The  old  civilizations  were  founded  on  slavery;  ours 
is  based  on  freedom  of  contract;  in  ancient  societies  rigid  caste 
lines  separated  the  classes :  in  ours  men  pass  constantly  from 
one  to  the  other — the  sons  of  laborers  of  one  generation  becom- 
ing the  lawgivers  of  the  next;  the  civilizations  of  old  were 
simple  extensions  of  the  patriarchal  system:  ours  is  the  result 
of  industrial  evolution.  In  olden  times  all  the  knowledge  and 
culture  of  the  day  were  reserved  for  a  select  few.  The  indus- 
trial evolution  of  modern  society,  with  the  introduction  of 
machinery  into  all  the  branches  of  industry — with  its  steam 
power,  its  cheap  newspapers,  its  cheap  books,  its  cheap  maga- 
zines, its  free  libraries,  and  its  free  schools — has  made  possible 


SOCIALISM  133 

to  all  the  pursuit  of  knowledge.  "He  who  runs  may  read."  The 
toiler  of  today  enjoys  privileges  beyond  the  reach  of  a  king  of 
former  times.  There  could  be  no  advance  on  these  earlier 
civilizations  without  a  change  in  the  form  of  the  struggle  for 
existence,  says  the  critic;  and,  as  a  result  of  economic  causes, 
it  changed — to  industrial  competition. 

Now,  though  the  line  of  reasoning  thus  put  forward  against 
Socialism  seems  both  logical  and  convincing,  it  contains  several 
erroneous  conclusions.  The  statement  that  industrial  competition 
is  responsible  for  the  organization  of  society  is  certainly  untrue. 
This  organization  dates  back  to  the  time  when,  following  the 
line  of  least  resistance,  men  found  they  could  produce  more, 
working  at  special  occupations  and  exchanging  their  commo- 
dities, than  when  each  worked  for  himself  at  a  variety  of  occu- 
pations. The  organization  of  society  must  be  attributed  to  the 
specialization  of  industry,  with  its  accompanying  system  of 
exchange.  First  the  simplest  division  of  labor,  the  learning  of 
handicrafts ;  then  the  gathering  of  the  artisans  into  guilds,  the 
associations  of  the  guild  masters  and  the  rise  of  the  trades 
unions,  the  inception  of  the  factory  system  and  its  gradual 
development,  the  gathering  of  large  groups  of  working  men 
into  factories  and  the  integration  of  masters  into  corporations 
and  trusts :  these  are  the  steps  by  which  the  organization  of 
society  was  effected — from  first  to  last  due  to  the  specialization 
of  industry.  Consequently,  the  objection  that  the  abolition  of 
competition  means  the  disorganization  of  society  falls  to  the 
ground. 

The  arguments  of  the  biological  critics  of  Socialism  might  be 
strictly  true  were  their  application  restricted  to  cabbages  and 
potatoes ;  but  applied  to  man  they  are  worthless.  Man  is  not  a 
vegetable,  passively  subject  to  the  action  of  natural  forces  and 
reacting  automatically  upon  them,  but  possesses  a  power  of 
consciously  reacting  upon  environment  and  partially  molding  it 
to  his  will.  By  virtue  of  this  power  he  becomes,  as  it  were, 
the  architect  of  his  own  fortunes — the  builder  of  his  own  phys- 
ical, mental,  and  moral  structures.  It  is  therefore  necessary  that 
he  have  an  ethical  standard — that  the  conscious  molding  of 
environment  may  have  for  its  ultimate  aim  the  production  of 
the  highest  type  of  man.  The  biological  criticisms  of  Socialism 
are  therefore  lacking,  insomuch  that  they  have  not  taken  this 
power  into  consideration. 

Looking  at  the  question  from  another  point  of  view,  an 
11 


134  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

examination  of  existing  society  will  show  that  the  unconscious, 
unregulated  action  of  social  environment  has  actually  resulted  in 
the  setting  aside  of  natural  selection.  This  has  been  replaced  by 
a  perverse  social  selection,  which  divides  society  into  at  least 
four  distinct  classes.  It  preserves  first  the  man  of  wealth — 
gained  perhaps  by  no  exertion  of  his  own — who  may  or  may  not 
be  possessed  of  the  physical  and  mental  attributes  that  would 
insure  his  survival  under  other  conditions.  As  he  is  able  to 
buy  better  brains  than  his  own  to  manage  his  possessions,  he  is 
secure  in  the  survival  of  his  family;  while  the  practise  of  tying 
up  large  estates  in  trust  for  the  benefit  of  improvident  heirs  still 
further  sets  aside  the  operation  of  natural  selection.  The  efforts 
of  the  "fool  killer"  are  rendered  abortive.  In  the  middle  class, 
the  keenest  and  generally  the  most  unscrupulous  trader  survives. 
In  the  working  .class,  the  man  with  the  strongest  body  and  the 
most  slavish  disposition  is  the  one  favored  in  the  struggle  for 
existence.  And  in  the  slums,  normal  persons,  dragged  down  by 
hard  conditions,  are  slowly  exterminated,  leaving  the  beggar  and 
the  thief  to  propagate  their  kind.  It  cannot  be  said  that  natural 
selection  is  responsible  for  the  existence  of  any  of  these,  or  that 
they  approach  the  type  we  should  choose  for  our  standard. 

Looking  at  the  question  from  still  another  point  of  view,  if 
we  allow,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  industrial  competition 
is  synonymous  with  the  struggle  for  existence,  we  shall  find  our- 
selves placed  in  a  very  peculiar  position.  We  shall  be  obliged 
to  assert  that  95  per  cent  of  the  business  men  of  all  countries 
are  "unfit."  Statistics  compiled  by  the  best  authorities 
show  that  95  per  cent  of  all  business  enterprises  become  bank- 
rupt. This  enormous  percentage  of  failures  must  then  prove  one 
of  two  things :  either  that  95  per  cent  of  all  merchants  engaged 
in  business  are  unfit,  or  that  an  injurious  selective  principle, 
which  does  not  discriminate  between  the  fit  and  the  unfit,  has 
arisen  during  the  evolution  of  society.  The  latter  hypothesis  is 
probably  the  true  one.  The  fact  that  many  men,  after  failing  in 
business  once  or  twice,  eventually  succeed  can  be  explained  in  no 
other  manner.  What  confidence  can  be  placed  in  an  automatic 
selective  process  that  changes  its  judgment  so  readily?  How  can 
a  man  who  has  been  twice  pronounced  unfit  by  industrial  com- 
petition suddenly  become  fit?  The  only  answer  that  can  be  given 
to  such  a  query  is,  the  man  was  always  fit.  Conditions,  favor- 
able or  unfavorable,  decided  the  question  of  his  success  or 


SOCIALISM  135 

failure.  Much  evidence  may  be  adduced  in  support  of  such  a 
theory. 

A  hundred  years  ago  the  business  of  society  was  carried  on 
by  a  multitude  of  small  manufacturers,  small  storekeepers,  me- 
chanics, and  farmers.  Business  failures  were  few  and  far 
between,  and  the  commercial  crisis  would  not  for  some  time  to 
come  startle  the  world  by  its  repeated  visits.  Now,  judged  by 
the  standard  of  the  biologist,  the  majority  of  the  business  men 
of  civilized  countries  were  at  that  time  fit.  Judged  by  the  stand- 
ard of  the  economist,  free  competition,  in  a  community  of  small 
producers  possessing  a  world's  market,  could  not  produce  the 
evil  results  ascribed  to  it  today.  Competition  between  two  small 
merchants  with  a  world  to  exploit  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
competition  between  a  small  merchant  and  a  gigantic  trust, 
between  a  blacksmith  and  an  implement  factory,  between  a 
laborer  and  a  steam  shovel.  Judged  by  the  standard  of  the 
biologist,  95  per  cent  of  modern  men  of  business  are  unfit. 
Judged  by  the  standard  of  the  economist,  the  centralization  of 
capital,  the  concentration  of  industry,  and  the  social  effect  of 
machinery  have  simply  made  it  impossible  for  them  to  remain 
in  business.  They  cannot  compete. 

The  great  selective  principle  of  the  biologist — industrial  com- 
petition— is  apparently  in  danger  of  abolition  long  before  the 
Socialist  gets  his  innings.  The  gradual  transformation  of  the 
methods  of  production  and  distribution  must  eventually  end  in 
the  death  of  competition.  The  copartnership  of  two  individuals 
in  a  commercial  enterprise  is  the  entering  wedge;  competition 
is  destroyed  between  them.  The  amalgamation  of  such  firms 
into  corporations  is  a  further  step  in  the  process  that  finds  its 
logical  end  in  the  trust.  A  national  and  international  agreement 
between  the  trusts  is  the  last  step  in  the  process  that  wipes 
competition  out  of  existence,  and  with  it  the  selective  principle 
of  the  biologist  and  his  objection  to  Socialism.  If,  though  not 
at  all  likely,  the  commercial  system  could  be  developed  to  such 
an  extreme,  society  would  then  become  an  industrial  oligarchy 
ruled  by  trusts. 

A  legitimate  objection  to  the  line  of  reasoning  thus  put 
forward  must  now  receive  consideration.  While  it  is  certainly 
true  that  competition  is  gradually  being  killed  by  the  business 
of  society  passing  into  the  hands  of  trusts,  it  is  equally  true  that 
competition  among  their  employees  still  remains.  It  therefore 


I36  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

must  be  shown  that  under  Socialism  some  incentive  to  exertion 
would  take  the  place  of  this  form  of  competition.  The  complete 
domination  of  society  by  the  trusts,  with  the  destruction  of  in- 
dustrial competition  between  them,  does  not  necessarily  involve 
the  disintegration  of  society.  So  long  as  competition  developed 
commercial  and  mechanical  ability  among  the  employees  of  the 
trusts  the  business  of  society  might  be  carried  on  for  an  indefi- 
nite period — provided  no  other  disturbing  factors  entered  into 
the  calculation.  Kings  by  divine  right  and  their  descendants 
ruled  the  world  for  many  generations  without  any  essential 
alteration  of  their  characters.  And,  in  like  manner,  industrial 
oligarchs  might  rule  the  world  for  long  periods,  provided  the 
selective  principle  that  formed  the  units  of  their  society  contin- 
ued to  operate.  It  is  then  absolutely  necessary  that  in  a  collec- 
tivist  society  some  incentive  should  move  to  action  the  masses  of 
the  people — that  great  majority  who  live  always  in  the  present, 
invariably  preferring  a  small  amount  of  proximate  happiness  to 
a  large  amount  of  ultimate  happiness. 

The  exponents  of  Socialism  are  addressing  themselves  to 
this  task;  they  are  trying  to  bring  their  economic  theories  into 
harmony  with  the  laws  of  life.  The  old-time  revolutionary 
beliefs  have  given  way  to  an  evolutionary  synthesis.  The 
modern  Socialist  recognizes  the  fact  that  great  social  changes 
are  worked  out  with  much  travail  through  long  periods.  Con- 
fident of  the  ultimate  realization  of  his  hopes,  he  is  content  for 
the  present  to  demand  such  political  and  economic  changes  as 
will  better  the  immediate  condition  of  his  fellowmen.  Along 
with  this  he  asks  for  the  perfection  of  the  machinery  of  gov- 
ernment and  the  state  ownership  of  those  industries  which  have 
attained  national  importance.  These  necessary  steps  taken,  he 
leaves  to  the  future  to  decide  what  next  shall  be  done. 

The  answer  to  the  final  question — what  under  Socialism  will 
be  the  incentive  to  exertion? — takes  on  a  threefold  aspect.  It 
may  be  stated  as  follows:  (i)  The  problem  to  be  solved  is 
not  a  question  of  biology,  but  one  of  economics — that,  whether 
or  not  opposed  to  the  laws  of  life,  the  evolution  of  society  is 
driving  us  to  collectivism.  It  may  be  that,  even  as  all  other 
civilizations  have  contained  within  themselves  the  seeds  of  their 
own  dissolution,  so  this  apparent  antagonism  between  the  con- 
stitution of  our  society  and  the  laws  of  life  may  likewise  end  in 
its  disintegration.  But,  be  this  as  it  may,  to  collectivism  we 


SOCIALISM  137 

must  go.  (2)  The  examination  of  many  industries  conducted 
by  the  governments  of  different  countries  proves  conclusively 
that  the  quality  of  work  turned  out  by  them  is  fully  equal,  if 
not  superior,  to  the  same  class  of  work  turned  out  by  private 
firms.  (3)  The  fear  of  dismissal  and  the  hope  of  reward  are 
the  incentives  that  move  to  action  the  lower  classes  under 
existing  society.  The  same  incentives  spur  to  industry  those  in 
government  employ,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  the  same 
incentives  would  not  obtain  under  Socialism. 

The  proper  treatment  of  the  first  division  of  the  threefold 
answer  would  require  a  critical  exposition  of  the  evolutionary 
forces  that  are  causing  the  centralization  of  capital  and  industry. 
It  would  be  necessary  to  inquire  into  the  social  effect  of 
machinery  to  find  out  the  limits  beyond  which  the  expansion 
of  industry  cannot  go,  and  to  speculate  on  the  disastrous  effects 
that  are  likely  to  follow  the  development  of  the  Orient.  To 
do  this  properly  would  require  the  writing  of  a  voluminous 
work.  We  shall  therefore  have  to  be  content  with  a  general 
statement  of  the  probabilities  of  the  future. 

The  constantly  increasing  productivity  of  our  national  indus- 
tries requires  an  ever-increasing  foreign  market,  and  each  year 
adds  to  the  enormous  bulk  of  our  exports  to  other  countries. 
The  consuming  power  of  the  home  market  is  determined  by 
the  decreasing  wage  of  the  industrial  classes,  and  by  the  lessen- 
ing purchasing  power  of  the  American  farmer.  There  is  thus 
a  steady  increase  in  the  surplus  commodities  available  for  ex- 
port. This  being  the  case,  we  are  justified  in  asking  the  ques- 
tion, What  shall  we  do  when  our  merchants  and  mechanics 
have  to  compete  in  the  markets  of  the  world  with  the  cheap 
labor  of  China  and  Japan?  Large  amounts  of  capital  are 
seeking  investment  abroad,  the  nature  of  the  capitalistic  system 
of  production  and  distribution — its  one  aim  and  object — being 
the  production  of  surplus  value.  The  constant  lowering  of  the 
rate  of  interest  in  civilized  countries  forces  the  surplus  capital 
to  seek  investment  elsewhere.  The  spectacle  of  the  scramble  for 
the  shares  of  the  Lipton  Tea  Company,  which  were  subscribed 
for  three  times  over,  and  other  like  cases,  show  conclusively 
that  capitalists  are  everywhere  struggling  for  profitable  invest- 
ments. China — with  its  vast  resources,  its  variety  of  climate, 
its  splendid  system  of  navigable  rivers,  and  its  hordes  of  cheap 
laborers — is  standing  on  the  threshold  of  a  new  era.  There 


138  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  unused  millions  of  Europe  and  America  will  find  ready 
investment.  The  great  commercial  nations  are  already  taking 
the  first  steps  to  let  loose  an  industrial  scourge  upon  the  earth. 

And  what  is  to  become  of  the  American  farmer  when  the 
introduction  of  the  automobile  completes  the  work  of  the  trolley 
car  and  destroys  the  market  for  horses?  What  will  become  of 
the  commercial  traveler  and  the  superfluous  mechanic  when  the 
centralization  of  industry  in  the  hands  of  the  trusts  does  away 
with  all  unnecessary  labor?  There  is  but  one  answer:  These 
economic  conditions  will  compel  society  eventually  to  under- 
take the  orderly  arrangement  of  its  business — to  balance  its 
production  and  distribution.  It  will  be  forced  into  Socialism, 
biological  objections  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

The  second  and  third  divisions  of  the  answer  may  well  be 
treated  together.  An  appeal  to  known  facts  will  certainly  be 
conceded  the  best  answer  that  can  be  given  to  any  question. 
Let  us  see,  therefore,  what  light  experiments  in  collectivism  will 
throw  upon  the  problem.  The  English  navy  is  certainly  the 
finest  in  the  world;  yet  almost  all  its  vessels  have  been  entirely 
constructed  in  the  government  yards.  Each  ship,  from  keelson 
to  royal  truck,  has  been  built  by  men  in  the  service  of  the 
government.  Each  gun,  from  the  no-tonner  at  Chatham  to 
the  small  arm  carried  by  the  marines,  is  manufactured  in  the 
great  arsenal  at  Woolwich  or  in  the  government  factory  at 
Enfield.  The  clothing  of  both  soldiers  and  sailors  is  made  in 
the  government  shops  at  Pimlico,  and  the  bread  they  eat  is 
baked  in  government  ovens.  Here,  then,  is  an  experiment  in 
collectivism  conducted  upon  a  very  large  scale.  What  light 
does  it  throw  on  the  question  at  issue?  An  inspection  of  the 
dockyards,  foundries,  factories,  stores,  and  bakeries,  owned  and 
operated  by  the  British  government,  reveals  an  army  of  artisans 
and  laborers  at  work,  successfully  conducting  the  many  opera- 
tions necessary  to  the  outfitting  and  maintenance  of  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  men.  The  skill  and  efficiency  they  display  and  the 
quality  of  the  work  they  turn  out  are  fully  equal,  if  not  superior, 
to  that  produced  in  the  yards  of  Armstrong  at  Keswick,  or 
Carnegie  at  Homestead.  The  ammunition  boots,  for  instance, 
supplied  to  Thomas  Atkins  at  $2.50  a  pair  cannot  be  duplicated 
in  private  life  for  twice  the  money;  and  the  clothes  served  to 
him  by  a  paternal  government  at  $4.75  a  suit  are  as  strong  and 
serviceable  as  they  are  cheap.  Indeed,  a  habit  of  selling  his 


SOCIALISM  139 

necessaries  to  envious  civilians  occasionally  gets  Mr.  Atkins 
into  trouble  with  the  authorities,  and  at  the  same  time  pays  a 
high  tribute  to  the  quality  of  his  belongings. 

Many  illustrations  of  like  kind  can  be  accumulated  from  all 
civilized  nations.  The  German  telephone  system  gives  the  best 
and  cheapest  service  in  the  world.  The  postal  systems  of  all 
countries  may  be  cited  as  proofs  of  the  practicability  of  col- 
lectivism. Great  Britain  owns  her  telegraph  and  express  sys- 
tems, and  almost  all  countries  operate  their  police  and  fire 
departments.  The  function  of  education  has  passed  from  the 
hands  of  the  private  teacher;  and,  if  any  further  proof  were 
needed,  surely  the  successful  application  of  the  principle  of  the 
municipal  ownership  of  public  utilities  would  satisfy  the  most 
inveterate  doubter. 

Here,  then,  in  different  countries  are  some  millions  of  per- 
sons in  the  service  of  their  respective  governments.  They  are  or- 
dinary, common  people,  subject  to  the  same  passions,  virtues,  and 
vices  as  the  remaining  members  of  society.  They  have  also  the 
habit  of  choosing  lesser  proximate  happiness  to  greater  future 
happiness,  which  distinguishes  the  large  majority  of  their  fellow- 
creatures.  What,  then,  is  the  "incentive  to  exertion"  that  keeps 
them  at  work?  What  is  it  that  makes  Tommy  Atkins  accom- 
plish forced  marches  in  the  heat  of  the  Soudan,  and  causes  his 
American  brother  to  chase  the  elusive  Filipino  through  fever 
swamps?  Whence  comes  the  rapid  stride  of  the  postman?  Why 
does  the  fireman  plunge  into  the  flame  and  smoke  of  the 
burning  building,  and  the  policeman  risk  his  life  in  the  protec- 
tion of  the  lives  and  property  of  others?  Wherefore  flies  the 
pen  of  the  government  clerk  over  his  paper?  And  why  do  the 
"builders  of  the  ship" — the  sawyers  and  the  carpenters,  the 
riveters  and  the  boiler-makers,  the  machinist  and  the  foundry- 
men  and  the  blacksmiths — one  and  all,  from  the  highest  to  the 
lowest,  ply  their  vocations  with  such  industry?  Why?  Because 
all  are  animated  by  the  same  incentives — the  hope  of  reward, 
the  desire  of  promotion,  the  fear  of  dismissal.  It  is,  as  John 
Stuart  Mill  remarked,  "very  much  a  question  of  education;  a 
man  may  be  taught  to  dig  and  weave  for  his  country  even  as 
he  has  been  taught  to  fight  for  it."  And  there  is  absolutely  no 
reason  why  these  incentives,  which  now  move  to  exertion  the 
people. engaged  in  private  and  public  enterprises,  should  not  con- 
tinue to  do  so  in  a  collectivist  society.  Given  a  strong  central 


i4o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

authority,  willing  and  able  to  enforce  the  laws,  an  authority 
that  would  have  behind  it  all  the  force  of  public  opinion,  it 
seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  idle  persons  could  be  more 
effectively  dealt  with  than  under  existing  conditions.  They 
might  choose  between  work  and  starvation;  there  could  be  no 
other  alternative. 

There  remains  but  one  other  point  to  be  touched  upon.  If 
it  be  granted  that,  with  a  strong  central  authority  established, 
the  usual  incentives  that  move  to  action  coarser  natures  will 
obtain,  have  we  any  surety  that  higher  forms  of  human  en- 
deavor will  continue?  Will  the  ripe  fruits  of  intellect  still 
adorn  the  gardens  of  an  esthetic  civilization?  What  incentive 
will  cause  a  man  to  undertake,  for  instance,  the  immense  labors 
necessary  to  achieve  literary  perfection?  Is  it  probable  that  a 
man  that  could  satisfy  his  immediate  wants  by  a  little  bodily 
labor  would  be  likely  to  undertake  such  arduous  toil? 

An  analysis  of  the  ambition  that  causes  men  to  undertake 
such  tasks  will  disclose  the  fact  that  it  is  a  complex  feeling, 
made  up  of  many  components.  Probably  the  chief  of  these  is 
the  love  of  approbation — the  desire  to  stand  well  in  the  eyes  of 
one's  fellows.  Again,  deep  down  in  the  heart  of  man  is  to  be 
found  the  desire  to  leave  some  little  mark  upon  the  sands  of 
time.  The  thought  of  annihilation,  without  even  a  fleeting 
remembrance  remaining  of  his  life  and  labors,  is  utterly  repul- 
sive. Wherefore  it  is  that  we  find  him  undertaking  all  kinds  of 
laborious  tasks  to  perpetuate  his  memory.  The  pyramids  ot 
Egypt,  built  in  the  dawn  of  history  to  hand  down  forever  the 
fame  of  some  now  forgotten  monarch,  are  striking  evidences  of 
the  strength  of  this  feeling.  The  shepherd  who  burnt  the  temple 
of  Diana  chose  infamy  before  oblivion,  and  throughout  the  ages 
are  scattered  countless  evidences  of  the  desire  of  man  to  leave 
his  mark ;  yea,  in  our  own  time,  mediocrity  strives  to  perpetuate 
its  memory  by  the  erection  of  million-dollar  tombs. 

The  love  of  power  is  yet  another  component  of  ambition. 
The  centurion  in  the  Scriptures  said:  "Lord,  thou  knowest  I  am 
a  man  in  authority.  I  say  unto  this  man,  go,  and  he  goeth ;  unto 
that  man,  come,  and  he  cometh."  And  as  it  was  with  the  cen- 
turion, so  is  it  with  all  men — they  love  to  sit  in  the  high  places. 
The  desire  for  knowledge  must  also  be  added  to  the  other  feel- 
ings. Men  have  suffered  torture,  imprisonment,  and  even  death 
at  the  stake  in  defense  of  the  knowledge  they  thought  right. 


SOCIALISM  141 

The  figure  of  Bruno  stands  forth  from  the  black  night  of  ignor- 
ance that  settled  down  over  medieval  Europe,  a  striking  instance 
of  the  power  of  knowledge  to  move  men  to  noble  action.  Haled 
before  the  Inquisition,  he  is  informed  that  he  has  been  guilty  of 
heresy  and  is  asked  to  recant.  There  are  no  witnesses,  no 
accusers — none  but  the  familiars  of  the  Holy  Office  moving 
stealthily  about  him.  The  tormentors  are  in  the  vaults  below. 
With  none  to  sustain  him,  he  cannot  and  will  not  deny  that 
which  he  knows  to  be  true.  He  is  handed  over  to  the  civil 
authorities  and  burned  at  the  stake.  Galileo,  imprisoned,  and 
for  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life  treated  with  remorseless  sever- 
ity, for  persisting  in  saying  that  which  even  his  accusers  knew 
to  be  true,  and  Milton,  the  blind  poet,  receiving  in  exchange  for 
"Paradise  Lost"  the  miserable  pittance  of  five  pounds,  are  also 
instances  of  the  strength  of  this  feeling.  All  the  varied  feelings 
here  enumerated  go  to  make  up  that  complex  emotion  called  ambi- 
tion— the  love  of  approbation,  the  desire  to  be  remembered,  the 
love  of  power,  and  the  thirst  for  knowledge.  It  would  be  a  bold 
man  indeed  who  dared  to  assert  that  such  an  emotion  was 
brought  into  existence  by  industrial  competition. 

On  the  other  hand,  history  records  many  instances  of  useful 
lives  and  great  talents  crushed  out  or  crippled  by  too  harsh  a 
competition.  The  brilliant  Chatterton  was  compelled  by  ill  cir- 
cumstances to  harness  his  genius  and  waste  his  splendid  powers 
on  the  copying  of  deeds.  Finally,  after  three  days'  starvation — 
too  proud  to  accept  alms — he  died  by  his  own  hand  in  a  lonely 
garret.  Johnson  and  Goldsmith  existed  in  penury.  Shakespeare, 
the  intellectual  giant  of  the  ages,  lived  harassed  by  debt  and 
died  a  comparative  nobody — a  play-actor,  a  "fellow  of  the  baser 
sort."  To  this  list  might  be  added  the  names  of  most  of  the 
literary  celebrities  of  the  past.  With  few  exceptions  they  lived 
in  misery,  pandering  to  the  humors  of  some  patron,  and  died  in 
poverty.  Now,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  easy  circum- 
stances would  have  aided  rather  than  hindered  the  development 
of  their  genius.  No  deterioration  is  visible  in  the  later  writings 
of  those  who,  suffering  in  early  life,  at  length  reached  affluence. 
The  scornful  name,  "pot-boilers,"  applied  by  artists  to  the  forced 
work  turned  out  to  keep  the  wolf  from  the  door,  and  the  appel- 
lation, "pen-trotter,"  applied  to  him  who  writes  for  the  same 
purpose,  signify  the  opinion  of  those  best  fitted  to  judge.  The 
best  work  in  literature  and  art  is  produced  when  a  strong  mind — 


142  .  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  correlative  of  a  well-fed  body — has  ample  room  to  unfold  its 
pleasant  fancies.  We  need  not  in  time  to  come  fear  a  dearth  of 
authors.  Of  the  making  of  books  there  is  no  end,  saith  Solomon, 
and  much  wisdom  is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh. 

In  the  Museum  of  Alexandria,  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  a 
bright  constellation  of  geometers,  astronomers,  and  physicists, 
made  discoveries  and  invented  appliances  that  equal  those  of 
modern  times.  Two  thousand  years  before  the  advent  of  indus- 
trial competition,  Ptolemy  produced  his  great  work,  "Syntaxis," 
which  maintained  its  ground  until  displaced  by  Newton's  "Prin- 
cipia";  Euclid  prepared  his  great  work;  Archimedes,  for  two 
thousand  years  the  greatest  mathematician,  discussed  the  equi- 
librium of  floating  bodies,  discovered  the  true  theory  of  the 
lever,  and  invented  the  screw  that  still  bears  his  name ;  Hip- 
parchus  and  Apolonius,  the  astronomers,  Ctesibius,  the  inventor 
of  the  fire-engine  and  the  water-clock,  and  Hero,  the  maker  of 
the  first  steam-engine,  were  all  members  of  that  illustrious  circle. 
Yet  they  were  all  in  the  service  of  and  supported  by  the  govern- 
ments of  their  day. 

To  this  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Socialist  contention  may  be 
added  that  furnished  by  the  high  schools  and  state  universities 
of  our  own  land.  The  scientists  and  teachers  who  direct  the 
operations  of  those  institutions  display  as  much  efficiency  and 
zeal  as  those  engaged  in  private  enterprises  of  like  kind.  They 
would  resent  with  heat  the  imputation  that  employment  under 
the  government  necessitated  inefficient  effort  on  their  part ;  nor 
could  any  facts  be  adduced  to  support  such  an  assertion. 

Society  does  not  pursue  the  even  tenor  of  its  way — from  low 
to  high,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex — in  one  straight,  un- 
broken line,  but  obedient  to  the  law  of  rhythm,  swings  forward 
and  back,  or  rather  follows  the  curve  of  an  upward .  spiral. 
Society,  like  the  units  of  which  it  is  composed,  learns  only  by 
experience.  It  tries  first  this  thing,  and  then  that,  encounters 
unforeseen  obstacles  and  retires,  learns  by  bitter  experience  what 
is  best,  and  so  advances.  As  it  has  done  in  the  past  it  will  do 
in  the  future.  The  development  of  the  commercial  system  will 
force  experiments  in  collectivism  upon  it.  That  which  is  proved 
good  will  be  retained,  and  that  which  is  bad  rejected.  And  so 
with  much  travail  will  man  work  out  his  destiny. 


SOCIALISM  143 

Review  of  Reviews.    22 : 353-4.     September,  1900 
The  Value  of  Brains  in  the  Socialist  State 

M.  Fouillee,  in  a  paper  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes  on 
"Mental  Labor  and  Collectivism,"  deals  with  that  familiar 
objection  to  the  various  collectivist  systems,  that  they  do  not 
take  into  account  sufficiently  the  value  of  mental  and  moral 
work ;  in  other  words,  collectivism  as  a  serious  system  of  eco- 
nomics is  based  too  much  upon  manual  labor  and  the  interests 
of  the  working  classes.  The  liberal  professions  are  frequently 
classified  as  unproductive,  and  the  calling  of  literature  itself  is 
regarded  as  parasitical. 

The  nature  and  value  of  mental  labor  have  always  been  a 
great  difficulty  with  the  collectivist.  Marx  attempted  to  reduce 
intellectual  labor  to  a  condensed  form  of  manual  labor;  but 
this  is  rather  like  arguing  that  diamonds  and  coal  are  equally 
valuable  because  they  are  both  made  of  carbon.  The  effort 
necessary  to  lift  a  hundredweight  of  goods  affords  no  key  to  the 
brain  labor  of  a  Darwin,  a  Socrates,  or  a  Descartes.  The  truth 
is,  says,  M.  Fouillee,  that  brain-work  cannot  be  measured  by 
material  standards. 

M.  Fouillee  goes  on  to  lay  down  certain  laws  in  the  develop- 
ment of  work.  The  first  is  the  progressive  predominance  of 
mental  labor;  this  is  exhibited  in  the  movement  of  science  and 
scientific  industries  which  is  characteristic  of  modern  times.  Side 
by  side  we  have  the  progress  of  invention  and  of  imitation;  the 
first  of  which  is  manifestly  by  far  the  most  intellectual,  for  the 
second  is  really  only  mechanical  reproduction.  According  to 
M.  Tarde,  capital — which  must  not  be  confused  with  wealth — 
represents  the  inventions,  while  labor  represents  the  imita- 
tions. There  is  yet  a  third  kind  of  work  which  Marx  has 
ignored :  that  moral  energy — perhaps  even  more  elusive  than 
intellectual  work — which  consists  in  the  sustained  attention,  per- 
severance, patience,  and  courage,  without  which  not  only  the 
industrial  world,  but  also  the  intellectual,  would  collapse. 

M.  Fouillee's  second  law  is  the  progressive  liberty  of  mental 
work,  and  indeed  of  all  work.  It  is  obviously  a  necessary  r.ondj- 
tion  of  the  greatest  inteH^tnal  w^r^  **  be  frpp  from  ml^  _The 
_myentor  must  have  his  individual  initiative  uncontrolled  •  the 
increase  of  civilization  makes  for  the  increase  of  this  liberty. 


144  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

The  savage  who  does  little  or  no  work  is  hardly  to  be  distin- 
guished from  his  brother  savage ;  while  the  civilized  citizens  of 
any  country  present  notable  differences  one  from  another.  Thus, 
work  itself  tends  to  emphasize  the  individual  element,  and  pro- 
gresses more  and  more  toward  the  personal  form.  Side  by  side, 
however,  with  this  individualizing  tendency  is  an  opposite  and 
socializing  tendency,  in  the  sense  that  every  age  inherits  the  great 
results  of  the  work  of  previous  ages.  This,  however,  does  not 
minimize  the  importance  of  the  inspiration  of  the  individual. 
Scientific  and  industrial  progress  are  in  no  sense  the  work  of  the 
crowd,  which,  indeed,  has  as  a  rule  been  bitterly  hostile  to  every 
great  labor-saving  invention.  How  will  the  proposed  collectivist 
society  organize  the  workers  who  work  with  their  brains?  How 
can  the  eight-hour  day  be  imposed  uoon  a  Virtnr  Hng^,  a"d  h?w 
can  the  value  of  his  work  be  estitn^t^?  Newton's  law  of  gravi- 
tation could  not  be  described  as  an  immediate  addition  to  the 
economic  resources  of  mankind;  Newton,  therefore,  in  thp  pm* 
npmic  state,  must  be  ranked  below  the  rriTin  who  dnrnvfrfi  a  new 
materiaj  for  ran  dips.  Again,  time  is  often  required.  The  con- 
Jemporaries  of  Galileo  could  not  foresee  that  his  discovery  of 
the  satellites  of  Jupiter  would  have  the  effect  of  saving  many 
ships  with  valuable  IJVPS  ^"^  rargO  from  bping  wrecked. 

We  come  to  the  next  law — namely,  that  material  labor  is 
transformed  gradually  into  mental  labor.  The  age  of  machinery 
has  obliged  manufacturers  of  all  kinds  to  become  more  intellec- 
tual, and  the  management  of  the  machines  themselves  has  had 
the  same  effect  on  the  workers.  Broadly  speaking,  it  is  the 
machine  that  undertakes  the  manual  labor,  and  enables  the 
worker  to  employ  his  brains  far  more  than  if  the  machine  had 
never  been  invented.  In  France  at  this  moment  steam  does  as 
much  work  as  would  require  the  muscles  of  105,000,000  men; 
and  as  there  are  only  about  10,000,000  of  adult  workers,  it  fol- 
lows that  every  French  working  man  has,  on  the  average,  under 
his  control  the  equivalent  of  ten  workers,  whose  labor  he  is  able 
to  direct. 

This  brings  us  to  another  law — the  progressive  amelioration, 
by  means  of  mental  labor,  of  the  social  condition  of  the  manual 
laborers.  M.  Fouillee  comes  to  the  conclusion  that,  though  there 
are  some  important  elements  of  truth  in  Socialism,  considered 
as  a  method  of  social  progress  by  the  means  of  society  itself 
and  of  social  laws,  yet  there  are  in  collectivism,  and  above  all, 


SOCIALISM  145 

in  communism,  vast  hypotheses  chiefly  based  upon  a  negative 
criticism  of  what  exists.  Human  progress  is  menaced  by  a  sys- 
tem which  apparently  leaves  no  room  for  intellectual  and  moral 
effort,  or  for  the  inspiration  of  genius.  The  Chinese  mandarin 
who  allows  his  nails  to  grow  in  long  and  beautiful  spirals,  in 
order  to  show  that  he"  has  never  done  any  mnrmnl  -ur^rVj  ic  nnt 
reallv  mnrp  riHirn1r>ii<t  than 


idle  fellow  the  man  who  only  uses  his  hand  to  hold  a  pen,  and 
only  works  with  his  brain. 


Century.     79:903-8.     April,  1910 
Why  Socialism  Is  Impracticable.     Charles  R.  Miller 

The  enduring  charm  of  the  literature  of  Socialism  lies  in 
its  complete  emancipation  from  the  thraldom  of  reality  and 
experience.  No  cringing  deference  to  the  teachings  of  human 
history  chills  the  ardor  or  cramps  the  inventive  fancy  of  a 
Socialist  when  he  sits  down  to  draw  up  a  program  for  the 
reconstruction  of  society.  He  sets  his  foot  upon  the  neck  of 
authority,  and  blithely  repudiates  established  truths  worked  out 
through  centuries  of  toil  and  strife  in  the  organization  of  insti- 
tutions. /  The  immense  and  enviable  advantage  of  this  free 
position  is  self-evident.  It  exempts  socialistic  theory  and  utter- 
ance from  conformity  with  a  host  of  tiresome  axioms  ;  it 
dispenses  with  research,  it  shuts_jout  the  confusing  past,  and 
enables  the  Socialist  to  soar  with  light  heart  and  unhindered 
wing  toward  his  ideal.  This  sense  of  freedom  and  detachment 
colors  all  socialistic  writing,  and  must,  I  imagine,  bring  to  the 
expounder  of  that  faith  a  joyful  sense  of  the  perfection  of  his 
work  rarely  vouchsafed  to  toilers  in  other  fields  of  authorship 
and  exposition. 

I   am   not   sure   that  the   Socialists   ever  attempt.  t 


forth,  even  ior  themsm_esT'theIaci3ial  conditions  under_sadikh 
the  socialistic  state  would  take  up  and  ^arry  /™  it?  vrr>rV  I 
have  nowhere  found  such  a  projection  of  the  program  of  the 
socialization  of  industry  and  production.  A  balance-sheet  of 
Socialism,  a  Socialist  budget,  is  a  thing  unknown.  No  Socialist 
writer  has  told  us  how  much  his  ideal  government  would  cost, 
or  has  disclosed  to  us  the  sources  of  its  revenue.  I  shall  try 
to  put  before  the  readers  of  The  Century  some  of  these  missing 


i46  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

elements  of  the  problem.  For  a  thorough  test  of  Socialism  it 
would  be  necessary  to  construct  a  sort  of  working  plan  of  a 
complete  Socialist  government,  and  put  it  in  operation.  No 
Socialist  will  do  that;  nobody  else  will  have  the  hardihood  to 
attempt  it.  I  shall  merely  set  forth  some  of  the  conditions  that 
would  confront  a  Socialist  administration  in  the  United  States, 
in  the  hope  that  the  showing  may  bring  into  view  certain  matters 
of  which  Socialism  has  taken  small  account. 

There  are  no  canonical  books  of  the  socialistic  faith  and 
practice,  no  body  of  doctrine  anywhere  proclaimed  that  is  in  all 
its  parts  everywhere  accepted  by  Socialists  as  orthodox.  Of  cur- 
rent writers  no  two  are  in  such  agreement  that  it  is  possible  to 
quote  one  as  an  authority  on  the  "faith  and  morals"  of  Social- 
ism, save  at  the  risk  of  being  reproached  for  misrepresentation 
by  most  of  the  others. 

There  is,  however,  a  collective  pronouncement  of  Socialism 
in  this  country  which  we  may  accept  as  authoritative,  and  which 
may  safely  be  consulted  by  those  who  wish  to  know  what 
Socialism  is  and  what  the  Socialists  really  propose  to  do. 
Everybody  should  know  that  Socialism  aims  at  the  overthrow 
of  the  existing  social  and  industrial  system,  the » abolition  of 
capitalism  and  the  competitive  wage-system.  Jaures  says  that 
the  proletariat,  the  wage-earners,  and  the  salaried  classes,  have 
now  an  ideal:  "They  desire  not  merely  to  cure  the  worst 
defects  of  society  as  it  exists;  they  want  to  establish  a  social 
order  founded  on  another  principle.  For  individual  and  capital- 
istic property,  which  assures  the  domination  of  a  part  of  man- 
kind over  the  rest  of  mankind,  they  would  substitute  commun- 
ism of  production,  a  system  of  universal  social  cooperation 
which  would  make  every  man  a  partner  by  right." 

This  embodies  in  general  terms  the  ideal  of  European  and 
American  Socialists.  We  find  these  principles  concisely  set 
forth  in  the  platform  of  the  national  convention  of  the  Socialist 
party,  adopted  at  Chicago,  May  17,  1908,  the  platform  upon 
which  Eugene  V.  Debs  made  his  campaign  for  the  presidency. 
Two  hundred  and  nineteen  delegates,  representing  nearly  all  the 
states  in  the  Union,  had  seats  in  that  convention.  The  conflict 
of  so  many  minds  and  four  days  of  debate  ought  to  have 
prepared  the  platform  to  resist  triumphantly  the  impact  of  the 
exegesis  of  the  faithful  and  the  criticism  of  unbelievers.  From 


SOCIALISM  147 

this  seasoned  exposition  of  the  principles  of  American  Socialism 
I  quote  the  general  demands  to  which  the  convention  and  the 
candidates  were  pledged : 

GENERAL   DEMANDS 

1.  The   immediate   government   relief  for  the  unemployed   workers  by 
building  schools,  by  reforesting  of  cut-over   and   waste  lands,  by   reclama- 
tion of  arid  tracts,  and  the  building  of  canals,  and  by  extending  all  other 
useful    public    works.      All    persons    employed     on     such     works     shall     be 
employed    directly   by    the    government    under    an    eight-hour    workday    and 
at  the  prevailing  union  wages.     The  government  shall  also  loan  money   to 
states    and   to   municipalities   without   interest   for   the   purpose    of   carrying 
on   public   works.      It   shall  contribute  to   the   funds   of  labor   organizations 
for    the    purpose    of    assisting    their    unemployed    members,    and    shall    take 
such  other  measures  within  its  power  as  will  lessen  the  wide-spread  misery 
of  the  workers  caused  by  the  misrule  of  the  capitalist  class. 

2.  The     collective     ownership      of     railroads,     telegraphs,     telephones, 
steamship    lines,    and   all    other   means    of   social    transportation    and   com- 
munication, and  all  land. 

3.  The  collective   ownership   of  all   industries  which   are   organized   on 
a  national  scale  and  in  which  competition  has  virtually  ceased  to  exist. 

4.  The  extension  of  the  public  domain  to  include  mines,  quarries,  oil- 
wells,  forests,  and  water-power. 

5.  The  scientific  reforestation  of  timber  lands,  and  the  reclamation  of 
swamp    lands.      The    land    so    reforested    or    reclaimed    to    be    permanently 
retained  as  a  part  of  the  public  domain. 

6.  The  absolute  freedom  of  press,  speech,  and  assemblage. 

In  this  new  world  where  everybody  is  to  have  everything,  it 
seems  to  me  that,  to  many  weary  souls,  the  most  pleasing 
prospect  must  be  that  of  rest — rest  from  the  endless  arguing 
and  contention  that  have  plagued  our  statesmen  and  our  politi- 
cians for  a  generation.  Are  not  all  these  problems  solved  in 
the  twinkling  of  an  eye  by  this  inspired  program  of  social 
reorganization  ? 

The  regulation  of  interstate  commerce  would  be  consigned 
to  the  limbo  where  the  Wilmot  proviso  and  the  alien  and 
sedition  acts  have  been  forgotten.  It  is  inconceivable  that  col- 
lective ownership  would  wink  at  unholy  rebates,  or  in  any  other 
way  stoop  to  the  chicane  of  favoring  one  shipper  over  another. 
There  would  be  no  watered  stock — nor  any  other.  Monopolies 
in  restraint  of  trade  would  be  made  forever  impossible — an 
amazing  paradox — by  combining  all  the  "combinations"  under 
one  ownership.  Complete  desuetude  would  be  the  fate  of  the 
anti-trust  act.  All  the  land  being  collectively  owned,  no  re- 


i48  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

former  could  fasten  upon  his  neighbor  the  guilt  of  the  unearned 
increment.  Although  banks  and  banking  are  not  mentioned 
in  these  "demands,"  the  control  of  the  instruments  of  exchange 
has  always  been  insisted  on  by  Socialists.  That  would  inevit- 
ably come,  and  early.  The  monetary  commission  could  rest 
from  its  labors,  and  turn  over  to  the  Socialist  secretary  of  the 
treasury  its  accumulation  of  texts  and  documents;  for  which, 
we  may  be  quite  sure,  that  functionary  would  have  no  use.  The 
Socialist  fiscal  and  currency  system  would  be  simple  beyond 
belief. 

There  might  still  remain  subjects  for  discussion  by  states- 
men, by  legislators,  by  orators,  and  by  the  press,  but  they  would 
be  new  subjects.  The  matters  we  now  take  with  such  entire 
seriousness  would  interest  only  antiquarians. 

These  "general  demands"  call  for  the  acquisition  by  the 
government  of  a  great  deal  of  property  now  in  private  hands, 
owned  by  individuals  and  by  corporations.  About  the  terms  of 
the  bargain,  the  price  to  be  paid  to  present  owners,  the  platform 
is  as  silent  as  the  grave.  The  texfwriters  differ  on  that  point ; 
some  say  that  private  property  is  to  be  paid  for,  not  con- 
fiscated. The  Fabians,  the  so-called  "intellectual"  Socialists  of 
England,  have  proposed  that  the  British  railways  shall  be 
purchased  at  a  price  reached  by  capitalizing  their  earnings  on  a 
4  per  cent  basis;  that  is,  the  purchase  price  would  be  twenty- 
five  times  the  average  dividends  for  three  years.  Let  us  assume 
that  the  Socialists  of  the  United  States  intend  to  make  payment 
for  the  property  conveyed  from  private  to  collective  ownership. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  apply  the  first  test,  to  picture 
forth  the  effects  of  Socialism  upon  the  commonwealth,  and  to 
bring  clearly  into  view  the  conditions  under  which  the  Socialist 
government  would  take  up  its  important  work.  All  lands,  all  the 
instruments  of  communication  and  transportation,  all  except  the 
minor  industries,  all  the  mines  and  the  forests,  all  the  water- 
power  and  oil-wells,  are  to  be  acquired  by  the  government. 
Banks,  as  I  have  said,  are  not  included  in  the  list,  but  Mr.  John 
Spargo,  who  was  chairman  of  the  committee  on  resolutions,  says 
in  his  book,  "Socialism,"  that  "a  monopoly  of  the  monetary  and 
credit  functions,  including  coinage,  banking,  mortgaging,  and  the 
extension  of  credit  to  private  enterprises,"  belongs  to  the  irre- 
ducible minimum  of  Socialism's  demands.  Now  let  us  count 


SOCIALISM  149 

the  cost,  so  far  as  the  elements  of  computation  are  written  within 
our  reach,  of  achieving  collective  ownership  and  of  setting  the 
new  government  upon  its  feet. 

According  to  the  last  report  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission, the  entire  outstanding  capital  of  all  the  railroads  in  the 
country— stock,  $7,373,212,323,  bonds,  $9,294,332,504— amounted  on 
June  30,  1908,  to  $16,667,544,827.  The  securities,  bonds  and 
stocks  representing  the  capital  of  the  Western  Union  Telegraph 
Company  amount  to  $138,462,100.  Of  the  Mackay  companies, 
which  control  the  Postal  Telegraph  and  Commercial  Cable  com- 
panies, and  many  others,  the  outstanding  capital  is  $91,380,400, 
and  the  Cable  Company  has  outstanding  bonds  to  the  amount  of 
$20,000,000.  The  American  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company 
has,  of  bonds  and  stock,  $369,587,300.  The  telegraph  and  tele- 
phone lines,  therefore,  foot  up  $619,429,800  of  capital. 

The  resources  of  all  the  banks,  state,  national,  and  private, 
and  of  the  trust  companies  in  the  United  States,  amounted  on 
April  28,  1909,  to  $21,095,054,420.  If  Socialism  assumed  the  lia- 
bilities, it  would  feel  at  liberty  to  take  the  assets,  I  suppose,  upon 
payment  to  the  owners  of  the  par  value  of  their  shares,  and  of 
the  distributive  value  of  the  surplus  and  undivided  profits.  That 
item  would  be  $3,637,972,240.  In  banks  having  a  large  volume  of 
deposits  other  elements  of  value  belonging  to  capital  might  very 
properly  be  included.  But  bankers  must  not  expect  too  much 
from  Socialism. 

The  value  of  the  farm-lands  of  the  country,  with  the  improve- 
ments, was  determined  by  the  census  of  1900  to  be  $16,614,647,491. 
The  value  of  the  buildings  and  improvements  cannot  be  sepa- 
rately stated,  but  it  would  be  only  a  small  part  of  this  sum,  and 
the  deduction  on  that  score  would  be  much  more  than  made  up 
by  the  increment  in  farm  values  in  the  last  decade.  The  real 
property  in  the  twenty-eight  principal  cities  of  the  United  States 
was  assessed  for  taxation  in  1909  at  $12,838,300,024.  Assessed 
valuation  ranges  from  50  per  cent,  or  less,  to  100  per  cent 
of  actual  market-value.  The  unvalued  and  unassessed  mar- 
gin, together  with  the  billions  of  land-values  in  the  smaller 
municipalities,  would  easily  swell  this  total  to  twenty  billions, 
even  after  the  deduction  of  the  value  of  buildings  and  improve- 
ments. The  Statistical  Abstract,  using  the  figures  of  the  cen- 
sus of  1905,  puts  the  capital  employed  in  manufactures  in  the 


12 


150  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

country,  not  including  hand  trades  and  minor  concerns,  at 
$12,686,265,673. 

No  trustworthy  estimate  of  the  property  value  of  the  steam- 
ships, oil-wells,  mines,  and  water-power  privileges  in  the  United 
States  is  accessible.  The  merchant  marine,  including  sailing 
vessels,  reached  the  total  of  7,365,445  gross  tons  in  1908.  The 
energy  yielded  by  the  streams  of  the  country,  turning  52,877 
wheels,  is  estimated  at  5,356,680  horse-power.  The  oil-wells 
produced  in  1908  crude  petroleum  to  the  value  of  $136,347,831. 
The  Standard  Oil  Company,  with  a  capital  of  $98,338,300,  does 
not  own  the  wells  the  crude  petroleum  of  which  it  refines.  In 
1008,  other  mineral  products  reached  a  total  of  $1,469,982,914. 
These  properties  are  worth  many  billions  of  dollars.  They  sus- 
tain their  fortunate  owners,  some  in  comfort  and  others  in 
luxury.  But  there  is  no  basis  for  an  estimate  of  their  worth, 
and  we  need  spend  no  time  in  vain  regret  over  this  blank  in  the 
statement  of  accounts.  We  have  assembled  so  many  more 
imposing  masses  of  capital  that  these  items  may  properly  be 
omitted  on  the  principle  of  de  minimis.  In  this  account,  as  I 
shall  show,  a  matter  of  a  few  billions  more  or  less  is  quite 
negligible. 

We  may  now  state  the  account  in  tabular  form,  and  give 
ourselves  up  to  the  pleasure  of  contemplating  the  total  initial 
liabilities  of  the  Socialist  government: 

Railways     $16,667,544,827 

Farm  lands    16,614,647,491 

City  lands   20,000,000,000 

Manufacturing  capital    12,686,265,673 

Bank  capital  and  surplus 3,637,972,240 

Telegraphs  and  telephones 619,429,800 


Total    $70,225,860,03 1 

How  would  the  Socialist  government  settle  for  these  prop- 
erties, bought  at  such  colossal  cost?  Only  by  issuing  its  obliga- 
tions. There  would  be  no  other  possible  way.  Thus  we  should 
come  to  the  unchallenged  primacy  among  debtor  nations,  with 
a  debt  of  seventy  billions.  The  present  public  debt  of  all  the 
nations  of  the  world  is  only  thirty-seven  billions.  The  largest 
debt  of  all  is  that  of  France,  amounting  to  $5,600,000,000;  the 
United  Kingdom  owes  $3,880,000,000.  The  annual  interest 


SOCIALISM  151 

charge  on  all  the  public  debts  of  the  world  is  $1,550,433,038.  At 
3  per  cent,  the  interest  charge  on  the  Socialist  government's 
debt  would  be  over  two  billions,  or  more  than  twice  our  entire 
national  debt,  and  more  than  three  times  our  total  annual  treas- 
ury revenue.  Much  more  than  half  the  wealth  of  the  nation 
would,  by  the  Socialist  program,  be  transferred  from  private  to 
"collective"  ownership.  We  may  grant  that  Socialism  would  cut 
down  "capital's"  account.  It  would  make  large  deductions  for 
inflation  in  stock  and  bond  issues.  But,  even  on  the  basis  of  a 
fair  "physical  valuation,"  the  total  would  not  be  materially 
diminished. 

The  reader  who  is  in  any  degree  familiar  with  fiscal  theory 
and  practice  will  already  have  reached  the  conclusion  that,  to  the 
present  owners  of  the  property  to  be  acquired,  it  would  not  make 
the  slightest  difference  whether  the  Socialist  government  pro- 
ceeded by  purchase  or  by  confiscation.  No  government  on  earth 
could  give  value  to  bonds  representing  a  seventy-billion  debt, 
nor  could  it  keep  up  the  interest  payment,  meet  other  public 
expenditures,  and  maintain  its  credit.  But  Socialists  point  to 
the  revenue  features  of  their  program,  "extension  of  inheritance 
taxes,  graduated  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  the  bequest 
and  nearness  of  kin,"  and  "a  graduated  income  tax."  It  ought 
to  be  unnecessary  to  point  out  that,  after  the  government  had 
taken  over  all  the  land  and  the  instruments  of  production,  trans- 
portation, and  exchange,  a  great  deal  more  than  half  the  whole 
wealth  of  the  country,  the  people  would  find  it  hard  enough  to 
make  a  bare  living  on  the  remainder  in  their  hands.  There 
would  be  no  incomes  for  the  levy  of  the.  tax-gatherer,  no 
estates  to  be  bequeathed.  There  remains  the  possibility  of  profit 
in  the  operation  of  railroads,  factories,  telephones,  and  telegraphs 
by  the  government.  Experience  in  municipal  trading  here  and 
in  England  shows  that  to  be  a  delusive  hope.  The  highest  skill 
and  trained  capacity  of  private  railroad  management  secured  in 
this  country  in  1907-08  a  net  return  of  3.9  per  cent  on  railroad 
capital,  and  in  England,  in  the  period  from  1901  to  1905,  the  net 
return  to  capital  was  3.38  per  cent.  There  is  no  source  from 
which  the  Socialist  government  could  get  revenue  enough  to  pay 
its  bills.  Its  bonds  would  be  worthless,  and  holders  of  them 
could  never  hope  to  receive  any  part  of  either  principal  or 
interest. 


152  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

It  would  be  just  as  well.  What  use  could  they  make  of  their 
money?  No  field  of  possible  investment  would  be  open  to  them. 
There  would  be  no  shares  to  buy,  no  corporations  to  organize, 
no  city-lots  to  be  bought,  no  farm-lands,  not  an  acre  anywhere 
left  to  which  they  could  acquire  title.  Only  the  smaller  trades 
and  occupations,  and  those  mostly  cooperative,  would  remain  for 
the  employment  of  private  capital.  To  abolish  capitalism  is  the 
fundamental  intent  of  the  Socialists.  On  that  all  else  depends. 
To  achieve  that,  their  "demands"  are  made.  Mr.  Spargo  says 
that  when  these  enumerated  activities  are  undertaken  by  the 
state,  "private  enterprise  would  by  no  means  be  eliminated,  but 
limited  to  an  extent  making  the  exploitation  of  public  interests 
and  needs  for  private  gain  impossible."  Again:  "It  may  be 
freely  admitted,  however,  that  the  ideal  to  be  aimed  at,  ulti- 
mately, must  be  approximate  equality  of  income,  otherwise  a 
class  formation  must  take  place,  and  the  old  problems  incident 
to  commercial  inequality  reappear."  To  check  this  deplorable 
tendency,  Mr.  Spargo  would  provide  that  the  inheritance  of 
acquired  wealth  should  be  denied,  "society  being  the  only  pos- 
sible inheritor  of  property." 

Here  reappears  the  bland,  engaging  aloofness  from  uncon- 
querable fact  and  conclusion.  Socialists  plant  themselves  firmly 
on  the  postulate  that  present  economic  conditions,  the  unequal 
distribution  of  wealth,  are  responsible  for  the  differing  con- 
ditions of  men.  The  redistribution  of  wealth  would  make  all 
men  equal,  all  men  happy  and  contented.  The  Socialists  over- 
throw, by  paying  no  attention  to  it,  the  belief  somewhat  widely 
held  that  it  is  the  inequality  in  the  capacities  and  in  the  am- 
bitions, temperaments,  and  dispositions  of  men  that  have  made 
economic  conditions  unequal,  that  have  brought  the  reward  of 
accumulations  to  the  industrious  and  the  thrifty,  and  have 
visited  the  penalty  of  narrow  circumstances  upon  the  improvi- 
dent and  the  prodigal. 

Plainly,  the  Socialist  ideal  is  a  social  dead-level,  an  organi- 
zation of  society  in  which  no  man  would  have  either  the 
incentive  or  the  law's  permission  to  surpass  his  neighbor  in 
effort  or  in  the  fruits  thereof.  That  dream  of  a  state  of  social 
perfection  can  be  attained  by  an  act  of  their  congress.  The 
bees  appear  to  be  Socialists.  They  are  industrious,  they  seem  to 
be  happy  and  contented.  But  they  long  ago  enacted  that  the 
honey-cell  should  be  constructed  in  a  certain  way,  and  that,  it 


SOCIALISM  153 

happens,  is  the  perfect  way  in  the  mechanical  as  well  as  in  the 
economic  sense.  Since  then,  very  naturally  and  sensibly,  the 
bees  have  given  up  the  idea  of  progress.  Somehow,  since 

Man  never  is,  but  always  to  be  blest, 

he  cannot  rid  himself  of  the  idea  of  progress.  It  is  an  ineradic- 
able propensity,  and  he  clings  to  that  idea  and  yields  to  that 
propensity  in  proportion  to  his  ambition  fmd  t^  his  ahili^y. 
Some  men  are  happy  in  the  static  condition;  others  find  content 
only  in  change,  and  change  always  with  the  idea  of  advance- 
ment. 

The  chief  of  all  the  many  unconquerable  conditions  which 
the_  Socialists  ignore  is  the  nature  of  man.  But  they  cannot 
change  it,  for  it  is  about  the  most  unchanging  and  unchangeable 
thing  within  our  knowledge.  Death  alone — the  death  of  all  men, 
and  the  arrest  of  all  organic  forces — can  bring  about  the  ideal 
dead-level  of  Socialism.  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer  assures  us  that 
one  of  the  lav/s  of  the  vital  universe  is  "the  instability  of  the 
homogeneous,"  which  may  be  transmuted  into  the  homelier 
phrase,  "the  cream  will  rise  upon  the  milk."  Organic  matter  is 
never  inert,  and  human  society  is  only  an  organism.  Socialism 
cannot  annul  the  laws  of  its  existence,  paralyze  its  energies, 
or  blast  with  sterility  every  atom  and  cell  of  its  being,  by 
decreeing  that  the  government  shall  own  the  railroads,  the 
farms,  and  the  factories.  Brains,  industry,  capacity,  foresight, 
would  assert  themselves  in  an  Socialist  state  as  in  any  other, 
and  laziness  and  improvidence  would  bring  want  and  depend- 
ence, as  they  now  bring  and  always  have  brought  them.  JThe 
Snrialist  fitatp,  pvpn  '^  fr  wprp  pnggiMe  to  establish  itT  would 
"Tear  itself  asnr)Hpr_  Living  men  would  dissociate  themselves 
from  the  body  of  death. 

Yet  the  doctrines  of  Socialism  are  taught  to  adults  and  to 
children  in  many  schools  established  and  maintained  by  Social- 
ists in  New  York  City,  and  in  many  other  cities  and  states. 
Picture  primers,  reading-books,  songs,  little  plays,  serve  to  instil 
the  abhorrence  of  capitalism  and  the  present  social  order  into 
infant  minds,  and  into  older  ones  as  well.  The  doctrines  are 
preached  from  pulpits  and  from  the  chairs  of  professors.  In  no 
Socialist  writing  that  has  ever  come  under  my  observation 
has  any  attempt  been  made  to  count  the  cost  of  collective 
ownership,  or  to  show  how  the  bill  would  be  paid.  Any  candid 
inquiry  into  the  problem  leads  to  but  one  conclusion — that  the 


154  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

bill    would    not    and    could    not    be    paid    at    all. 
confiscation  must""hecessarilv  precede  collecttveownershin. 

We  may  therefore  ask  by  what  means  the  owners  of  half 
the  national  wealth  are  to  be  made  to. part  with  it  for  the 
common  behoof.  Evidently  not  by  persuasion.  Nothing  in 
human  experience,  nothing  in  history,  supports  the  theory  of 
voluntary  surrender.  The  Socialists  say  that  the  change  is  to 
come  with  the  ballot.  Socialist  lawmakers,  executives,  and 
judges  will  accomplish  the  desired  expropriation,  paying  no 
heed,  of  course,  to  the  outcries  of  the  despoiled.  Armed  revo- 
lution is  no  longer  very  much  preached  save  by  a  fiery  agitator 
here  and  there,  and  by  those  passionate  declaimers,  newly  come 
to  our  shores,  who  bring  with  them  the  ardor  of  continental 
Socialism.  And  they,  it  seems  to  me,  are  the  only  consistent 
Socialists,  the  only  ones  who  really  know  what  they  want. 

Socialists  who  have  thought  much  about  the  adaptation  of 
means  to  ends  long  ago  came  to  understand  that  revolution  by 
force  was  out  of  the  question,  because,  as  Karl  Kautsky  puts  it, 
"of  the  colossal  superiority  of  the  weapons  of  the  present 
standing  armies,  as  compared  with  the  weapons  in  the  posses- 
sion of  civilians,  and  which  makes  any  resistance  of  the  latter 
patently  doomed  to  failure  from  the  beginning."  Is  it  not 
natural,  therefore,  that  Kautsky  should  insist  that  "the  abolition 
of  the  standing  army  and  disarmament  is  indispensable,  if  the 
state  is  to  carry  out  any  important  reforms?"  Far  above  the 
great  volume  of  Socialist  utterance,  that  remark  shines  by  the 
quality  of  consistency. 

There  is  no  antidote  to  Socialism.  It  was  born  in  man 
when  he  first  fought  over  the  spoils  of  the  chase  and  raged 
against  his  sturdier  cavemate  who  seized  the  larger  share.  But 
there  are  checks  and  palliatives.  A  clear  understanding  of  what 
Socialism  means  and  what  it  seeks  to  do  will  tend  to  arrest 
the  spread  of  its  doctrines,  now  furtively  making  their  way  to 
a  broader  acceptance  among  dreamers  and  visionaries  and  chil- 
dren, and,  above  all,  among  those  who  are  altogether  unin- 
formed as  to  what  Socialism  is.  It  is  well,  therefore,  that 
there  should  be  a  clear  understanding  that  the  Socialist  gov- 
ernment would  begin,  must  begin,  by  wholesale  confiscation  of 
property. 

The  palliatives  are  being  administered  all  the  time  in  every 
civilized  land,  by  the  action  of  public  opinion  upon  the  makers 


SOCIALISM  155 

of  the  laws.  A  study  of  the  legislation  of  the  last  century  in 
this  country  and  in  England  for  bettering  the  hard  conditions 
of  toil,  for  the  prevention  of  "man's  inhumanity  to  man,"  for 
establishing  the  rights  of  wage-earners,  and  setting  up  safe- 
guards for  them  against  oppression,  extortion,  injustice  and  dis- 
ease, for  better  housing,  for  schooling,  for  the  relief  of  the 
needy,  and  importing  heart  and  human  feeling  and  conscience  into 
a  relation  that,  a  hundred  years  ago,  was  based  upon  the  relent- 
less law  of  supply  and  demand  which  regulates  the  commodities 
market,  would  put  into  the  heads  of  the  theologians,  the  pro- 
fessors, the  charity-workers,  and  the  fashionable  ladies  who 
are  dabbling  in  Socialism,  a  fund  of  knowledge  which  they  now 
lack.  They  would  learn  that,  under  the  existing  social  order, 
under  our  institutions  as  now  established,  through  the  working 
of  public  opinion,  and  by  the  orderly  process  of  law,  the  evils 

of  which    .SorhiHm   jn«*iy  r1—   •"••          11         1   1   '  L 

cured. 


Independent.    69: 148-9.    July  21,  1910 

The  Socialist  Rule  of  Milwaukee 

There  is  one  phase  of  the  Socialist  Democratic  victory  in 
Milwaukee  that  is  most  significant  and  encouraging.  Mayor 
Seidel  publicly  announced,  prior  to  taking  his  seat,  that  before 
any  attempt  was  made  to  put  the  Socialist  pledges  into  operation 
the  best  judgment  of  the  best  experts  would  be  obtained.  "I 
may  say  that  ours  will  be  a  government  by  experts,"  were  the 
words  he  used  to  express  his  views. 

We  are  a'dvised  by  those  in  close  touch  with  the  situation 
that  Mayor  Seidel  and  his  advisers  are  ascertaining  where  they 
can  secure  the  best  and  most  efficient  men  to  fill  the  important 
places  in  the  municipal  government  of  Milwaukee,  and  that  they 
are  not  confining  their  inquiries  to  Milwaukee,  but  are  seeking 
help  and  suggestions  from  all  parts  of  the  country.  A  Milwau- 
kee correspondent  advises  us  that  he  is  confirmed  in  the  belief 
which  the  first  public  announcements  after  the  victory  aroused, 
that  the  Socialists  intend  to  give  the  city  the  best  administration 
they  can ;  to  be  conservative,  cautious  and  intelligent  to  the 
extent  of  their  ability  in  administering  the  affairs  of  the  city. 

There  is   another   significant    feature   of   the   situation.     No 


156  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

pressure  for  spoils  of  office  is  being  made  upon  the  new  officials 
from  their  own  ranks,  and  they  are  not  likely  to  recognize  any 
of  these  demands  from  the  ranks  of  the  other  parties.  It  is 
reported  that  they  are  altogether  likely  to  appoint  a  law  depart- 
ment that  will  be  composed  of  lawyers  from  outside  their  own 
party,  which  is  short  of  men  of  that  profession.  The  Public 
Works  Department  is,  of  course,  the  most  important  thing  the 
mayor  will  have  to  deal  with.  This  for  years  has  been  the 
weakest  part  of  Milwaukee's  government.  At  present  it  is  com- 
posed of  three  commissioners  and  the  city  engineer,  with  equal 
authority  and  no  concentration  of  responsibility  anywhere.  A 
bill  originating  in  the  Council  was  passed  by  the  Legislature  in 
1907  authorizing  the  reorganization  of  this  department  under  a 
single  head,  but  was  made  subject  to  a  Council  referendum 
requiring  a  majority  vote  to  adopt.  The  same  Council  which 
ordered  the  bill  drawrn  rejected  the  law  by  a  tie  vote,  but  the  new 
Social  Democratic  Council  will  adopt  the  law  and  reorganize  the 
Department  of  Public  Works.  Mayor  Seidel  wants  a  strong, 
capable  man  like  Colonel  Waring. 

In  a  recent  personal  letter  concerning  the  real  inner  signifi- 
cance of  the  Socialist  victory,  a  well-known,  public-spirited  citi- 
zen of  Milwaukee,  who  did  not  vote  the  ticket,  said : 

You  have  no  doubt  seen  it  expressed  in  the  exchanges  and  with  abso- 
lute accuracy  that  the  victory  was  a  protest  or  a  repudiation  of  twelve 
years  of  misrule  and  broken  promises  and  high-handed  disregard  of  public 
rights  under  the  administration  of  Mayor  Rose,  and  also  the  two  years  of 
Republican  administration  under  the  "boy  mayor."  This  is  really  all  there 
is  to  it.  The  citizens  refused  to  take  any  more  chances  and  the  Repub- 
lican ticket,  which  was  a  good  ticket,  was  deserted  by  its  friends,  who  felt 
that  it  did  not  hold  out  sufficient  security  of  election.  I  have  heard  no 
dissatisfaction  yet  expressed  anywhere  as  to  the  result.  The  city  is  on  the 
tiptoe  of  expectation,  and  very  hopeful  expectation  at  that,  as  to  how  the 
Social  Democrats  will  conduct  themselves,  and  predictions  are  very  freely 
made  that  we  may  expect  a  very  satisfactory  administration. 

Should  the  Socialists  of  Milwaukee  establish  a  firm  and 
sound  precedent  for  the  administration  of  municipal  affairs  by 
experts,  they  will  have  opened  a  new  and  highly  important  chap- 
ter in  the  story  of  American  municipal  development. 


SOCIALISM  157 

Independent.     68:840-3.     April  21,   1910 
What  Is  the  Matter  with  Milwaukee?    Victor  L.  Berger 

For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  this  country  the  Socialists 
have  carried  a  large  city.  They  have  carried  Milwaukee,  a  city 
of  nearly  400,000.  This  was  done  after  many  years  of  struggling 
and  gradual  but  substantial  growth.  For  1898  we  polled  only 
2,414  votes;  in  1900  we  polled  2,473  votes;  in  1902,  8,453  votes; 
1904,  15,056  votes;  1906,  16,837  votes;  1908,  20,887  votes;  and 
1910,  27,622. 

The  Socialists  of  Milwaukee  feel  proud  of  this.  And  they 
have  the  more  reason,  when  they  look  back  upon  the  kind  of 
campaign  that  was  made  against  them. 

The  Socialist  ticket  was  elected  after  a  campaign  of  abuse 
and  vilification  such  as  has  never  been  equaled  in  Milwaukee. 

The  Socialists  were  accused  of  preaching  "bullets,  not  bal- 
lots" ;  accused  of  favoring  a  bloody  revolution  and  of  intending 
to  plant  the  "red  flag  of  bloodlust"  upon  the  city  hall.  The 
voters  were  warned  that  the  "many  headed  reptile  of  Socialism 
threatened  the  home,  the  religious  beliefs  of  our  people  and 
their  liberty  before  God  and  man." 

These  accusations  were  repeated  day  after  day  and  night 
after  night  from  the  platform.  They  were  printed  day  after  day 
in  bold,  black  type  in  advertisements  in  the  daily  papers.  They 
were  made  the  text  of  many  editorials,  in  all  kinds  of  periodicals. 

Besides,  almost  the  entire  daily  press — six  English,  two  Ger- 
man and  two  Polish  papers — seemed  to  agree  that  the  election 
of  the  Socialist  ticket  would  destroy  the  "credit"  of  the  city  and 
paralyze  its  further  growth. 

However,  we  have  the  satisfaction  that  the  chief  shrieker,  the 
Republican  candidate,  had  only  11,262  votes.  The  Democratic 
nominee  polled  20,513  votes.  But  the  Socialist,  Emil  Seidel, 
received  27,622. 

We  also  elected  all  the  seven  candidates  for  aldermen-at- 
large,  and  fourteen  ward-aldermen  out  of  twenty-three. 

Among  them  was  the  rock-ribbed  Fourteenth  Ward,  on  which 
the  Democratic  party  was  supposed  to  have  a  perpetual  mort- 
gage, because  the  inhabitants  are  all  Poles  and  Roman  Catholics. 

However,  altho  the  priests  had,  as  usual,  their  political  say 
on  the  Sunday  before  the  election,  in  some  way  or  another  a  cog 


158  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

slipped  and  the  majority  of  the  ballots  in  the  Fourteenth  Ward 
were  "red,"  not  "black." 

The  Democratic  forces  in  all  probability  would  have  been 
beaten  quite  as  badly  as  the  Republicans,  if  many  "good"  Repub- 
licans had  not  voted  for  Mayor  Rose's  Crown  Prince,  Schoen- 
ecker,  because  they  feared  the  success  of  the  Socialists. 

As  for  the  nationality  of  our  voters,  they  are  overwhelmingly 
American.  As  a  rule  the  Socialists  cannot  get  either  the  German 
or  the  Pole  of  the  first  generation — to  say  nothing  of  the  other 
immigrants.  We  have  to  wait  for  the  second,  the  American  born 
generation,  educated  in  the  public  schools,  or,  at  least,  in  a 
parochial  school. 

Our  entire  method  of  propaganda  is  and  has  been  in  the 
past,  the  use  of  literature.  We  distributed  about  750,000  pieces 
in  this  campaign. 

Now  the  very  next  question  before  us  is  the  problem  of 
applying  the  international  Socialist  philosophy  to  present  condi- 
tions and  to  Milwaukee. 

We  must  now  show  the  people  of  Milwaukee  and  of  the 
United  States  that  the  philosophy  of  international  Socialism  can 
be  applied  and  will  be  applied  to  a  local  situation,  and  that  it 
can  be  applied  with  advantage  to  any  American  city  of  the  pres- 
ent day. 

As  to  the  fears  about  the  Socialist  party,  they  are  ridiculous. 

Since  election  day  is  over  nobody  in  Milwaukee  is  afraid  of 
the  Socialist  party. 

The  workingmen  surely  are  not  afraid.  In  fact,  working- 
men,  organized  and  unorganized,  constitute  the  overwhelming 
bulk — more  than  95  per  cent — of  the  Socialist  party. 

The  workingmen  see  in  Socialism  their  only  hope  and  guid- 
ing star  for  the  future.  They  see  in  Socialism  their  deliverance 
from  the  present  system,  which  keeps  them  in  ignorance,  misery 
and  degradation — and  exploits  them  both  by  low  wages  and 
high  prices. 

The  workingmen  know  that  only  as  Socialism  is  introduced 
and  instilled  into  our  public  life  and  public  institutions,  will 
trust  rule,  starvation  and  degradation  vanish. 

So  more  and  more  every  year  the  workingmen  form  the 
solid  phalanx  of  the  movement.  In  Milwaukee  they  are  almost 
a  unit  for  the  Socialist  party. 

So  much  for  the  workingman. 


SOCIALISM  159 

Now,  are  the  small  business  men  afraid?     They  are  not. 

The  small  business  men  see  that  they  are  economically 
doomed  by  the  ruthless  competition  and  the  overwhelming  power 
of  the  trusts. 

And  they  know  that,  after  all,  the  great  mass  of  the  working 
people  stands  nearer  to  them  in  methods  of  thought,  mode  of 
life,  and  common  sufferance  than  the  capitalists. 

The  small  business  men  are  sure  that  their  fate  is  tied  to 
the  fate  of  the  proletariat.  They  are  sure  of  the  sympathy  of 
the  working  class.  And  the  working  class  to  no  small  degree  is 
sure  of  their  sympathies. 

Some  people  said,  however,  that  in  case  of  a  Socialist  victory, 
Socialism  would  be  tried  in  Milwaukee,  law  and  order  would  be 
abolished,  and  trades  unionism,  strikes  and  boycotts  would  run 
amuck. 

It  is  true  that  certain  of  our  big  business  men  were  badly 
frightened. 

Yet  it  ought  to  be  clear  to  every  thinking  man  that  we  can- 
not abolish  capitalism  in  Milwaukee  alone  or  in  Wisconsin  alone. 

Moreover,  every  thinking  Socialist  knows  that  capitalism 
cannot  and  will  not  be  abolished  in  one  day.  We  all  know  that 
it  can  only  be  abolished  gradually. 

We  all  understand  that,  even  after  its  downfall,  remnants 
of  it  will  remain  for  a  long  time  to  come.  Remnants  of  feudal- 
ism even  now  are  still  strong  in  England,  France  and  Germany, 
altho  feudalism  broke  down  a  long,  long  time  ago.  The  capital- 
ism has  taken  its  place. 

And  as  to  law  and  order:  While  the  Socialists  have  not 
made  the  laws  and  are  not  responsible  for  the  present  order 
or  disorder,  even  our  opponents  must  concede  that  we  obey 
and  carry  out  the  laws,  and  make  our  opponents  obey  them  as 
far  as  we  can. 

Socialists  all  over  the  globe  have  always  complied  with  the 
laws  of  their  respective  countries. 

At  the  same  time,  we  admit  that  we  will  not  give  the  laws 
that  hateful  and  oppressive  construction  and  interpretation 
toward  the  working  class  which  they  usually  receive  under 
capitalistic  administrations. 

We  also  declare  that  we  will  change  and  abolish  *  all  the 
oppressive  laws  at  the  first  opportunity  we  get. 

And  it  is,  moreover,  clear  to  every  observer  that  the  Social- 


i<5o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

1st  party  is  a  great  organizer.  And  organization  always  means 
order.  Socialism  in  itself  never  creates  disorder — it  stands  for 
a  new  order  and  a  higher  order. 

Why,  then,  should  any  sane  man  be  afraid  of  the  Socialist 
party  ? 

The  effect  of  Socialism  upon  the  laboring  class  can  be  best 
studied  in  the  trades  unions  of  Milwaukee. 

We  have  had  hardly  any  strikes  in  Milwaukee  during  the 
last  six  or  seven  years.  In  fact,  we  had  many  less  strikes  than 
any  other  city  of  half  its  size  or  one-fourth  its  industrial 
importance. 

The  main  reason  for  the  rare  occurrence  of  strikes  in 
Milwaukee  is  very  simple. 

The  Socialist  has  made  the  present  industrial  system  a  study. 

He  knows  very  well  that  the  individual  employer  is  about  as 
much  the  product  of  the  present  system  as  the  individual 
workingman.  He  knows  that  the  capitalist  is  as  much  bound  by 
it  as  the  proletarian.  The  Socialist  knows  what  the  so-called 
employer  can  do  and  what  he  cannot  do. 

The  Socialist  knows  what  the  wage-worker  may  ask  and 
what  he  may  not  ask  under  the  present  system. 

The  Socialist  loves  his  home,  his  wife  and  children.  He 
wants  to  get  as  much  as  possible  for  them.  But  at  the  same 
time,  knowing  the  capitalist  system,  he  knows  that  he  cannot  go 
too  far  without  destroying  his  own  home. 

And  moreover,  the  Socialist  has  the  social  conscience.  He 
looks  at  everything  from  the  standpoint  of  the  working  class; 
from  the  standpoint  of  the  community ;  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  craft  to  which  he  belongs. 

I  can  say  from  actual  experience  that  at  times  the  Socialists 
of  Milwaukee  have  opposed  some  strikes  that  have  been  declared 
in  this  city. 

True,  after  a  strike  has  once  been  declared  by  the  majority, 
the  Socialists  have  been  the  most  active  and  ardent  supporters 
of  it  and  the  last  to  give  up  when  the  strike  was  lost.  But 
they  rarely  start  a  strike. 

Then  why  should  anybody  be  afraid  of  many  strikes  and 
boycotts  in  Milwaukee  in  case  of  a  Socialist  victory? 

The  Milwaukee  trades  unions  have  proven  to  be  a  factor  for 
order,  not  for  disorder. 


SOCIALISM  161 

Trades  unions  are  absolutely  necessary  for  the  protection 
of  the  workingmen,  organized  and  unorganized. 

Even  our  adversaries  and  opponents,  if  they  are  honest, 
admit  that  the  influence  of  the  Socialists  has  been  for  good; 
that  it  has  been  wholesome;  that  the  very  presence  of  our  men 
has  acted  as  a  sort  of  public  conscience,  represented  in  the 
meetings  of  the  common  council  and  the  county  board. 

We  did  not  get  any  votes  from  the  capitalist  class  as  such, 
or  from  the  hypocrites  who  decry  sin  in  the  open  and  practice 
it  secretly. 

We  told  them  plainly  that  we  scorned  the  votes  of  men  who 
prefer  hold-up  men  in  control  of  the  city  government  to  honest 
workingmen. 

And  we  want  it  understood  that  we  did  not  ask  anybody  to 
vote  for  our  candidates  only  because  they  are  honest. 

Socialists  aim  at  higher  things  than  simply  not  to  steal  when 
they  are  in  office — and  not  to  be  bribed  when  a  franchise  is 
to  be  given  out. 

Honesty,  that  is,  the  capacity  not  to  steal  and  not  to  be 
bribed,  when  there  is  the  temptation,  may  be  the  highest  ideal 
that  any  capitalist  party  has  set  up,  but  has  not  reached. 

With  us  this  kind  of  honesty  is  the  first  and  smallest 
requirement. 

But  we  want  to  expose  the  false  pretense  that  the  Socialists 
and  trades  unions  will  create  constant  disorder  because  of  the 
victory  of  our  party  in  Milwaukee. 

We  want  it  understood  that  we  shall  have  better  order  in 
every  respect  under  a  Socialist  administration  than  we  now 
have  in  any  city  in  the  country. 

The  realization  of  our  limitations  in  administering  the  affairs 
of  Milwauke  should  not,  however,  warrant  the  assumption  that 
the  complete  emancipation  of  labor  from  capitalism  is  any  less 
our  aim  and  object.  Therefore  this  is  our  answer  to  the 
question : 

What  is  the  matter  with  Milwaukee? 

The  working  class  here  is  gradually  awakening  to  the  possi- 
bilities of  modern  achievements  in  production.  And  that  their 
proper  administration  will  give  to  all  the  race  security,  peace 
and  the  necessities  and  comforts  of  life. 


162  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Independent.    52:2018-21.    August  23,  1900 
The  Social  Democratic  Party.     E.  V.  Debs 

In  the  Presidential  election  of  1892  the  Socialist  candidate 
received  21,512  votes;  in  the  election  of  1896  the  vote  was 
increased  to  36,275  votes.  The  following  two  years  witnessed 
an  unprecedented  spread  of  Socialist  sentiment  and  in  the  con- 
gressional and  state  elections  of  1898  the  Socialist  candidates 
received  91,749  votes,  an  increase  of  almost  200  per  cent,  in 
two  years.  But  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  this  vote  repre- 
sented the  entire  political  strength  of  Socialists  in  the  United 
States.  In  a  number  of  states  the  election  laws  were  such  that 
the  Socialist  ticket  could  not  be  placed  upon  the  official  ballot, 
while  in  many  districts  the  number  of  Socialists  was  so  small 
and  they  were  so  widely  scattered  that  no  nominations  were 
made  and  the  Socialist  vote  was  not  polled. 

The  figures  given  are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  in  the  United 
States,  as  in  other  countries,  International  Socialism  is  making 
tremendous  strides  and  that  its  7,000,000  supporters,  spread  over 
all  the  belts  and  zones  of  the  globe,  and  the  most  active  propa- 
gandists ever  known,  will  in  the  next  few  years  be  multiplied 
into  controlling  majorities  in  all  lands  which  have  modern 
industry  as  the  basis  of  their  civilization,  Socialism  being  wholly 
a  question  of  economic  development.  This  will  mean  the  end 
of  the  present  capitalist  competitive  system  and  the  introduction 
of  its  economic  successor,  the  cooperative  commonwealth. 

The  movement  is  international  because  it  is  born  of  and 
follows  the  development  of  the  capitalist  system,  which,  in  its 
operation,  is  confined  to  no  country,  but  by  the  stimulus  of 
modern  agencies  of  production,  exchange,  communication  and 
transportation,  has  overleaped  all  boundary  lines  and  made  the 
world  the  theater  of  its  activities.  By  this  process  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth  must  finally  be  drawn  into  relations  of 
industrial  and  commercial  cooperation,  as  the  economic  basis  of 
human  brotherhood. 

This  is  the  goal  of  modern  Socialism  and  it  is  this  that 
inspires  its  disciples  with  the  zeal  and  ardor  of  crusaders. 

So  much  has  been  said  and  written  of  Socialism  by  persons 
who  have  no  proper  conception  of  its  origin,  its  philosophy  and 
its  mission,  or  who,  for  reasons  of  their  own,  have  resorted'  to 
wilful  misrepresentation,  that  it  is  not  strange  that  a  great 


SOCIALISM  163 

many  people  instinctively  shrink  from  the  merest  mention  of  it, 
and  look  upon  those  who  advocate  this  perfectly  sane  and 
scientific  doctrine  as  the  enemies  of  society,  maliciously  plotting 
to  overthrow  its  cherished  institutions. 

What  is  Socialism?  To  answer  in  a  single  sentence,  it  means 
the  collective  ownership  by  all  the  people  of  all  the  means  of 
wealth  production  and  distribution.  It  is  purely  an  economic 
question;  the  evolution  of  industry  has  developed  Socialism. 
Man  can  only  work,  produce  wealth,  with  tools.  The  mere 
hand  tools  of  former  times  have  become  ponderous  and  very 
costly  machines.  These  machines,  Socialists  contend,  represent 
progressive  social  conceptions.  These  and  the  factories,  mills, 
and  shops  in  which  they  are  housed,  as  well  as  the  lands  and 
mines  from  which  the  raw  materials  are  drawn,  are  used  in 
common  by  the  workers,  and  in  their  very  nature  are  marked 
for  common  ownership  and  control.  Socialism  does  not  propose 
the  collective  ownership  of  property,  but  of  capital;  this  is  to 
say,  the  instruments  of  wealth  production,  which,  in  the  form 
of  private  property,  enable  a  few  capitalists  to  exploit  vast 
numbers  of  workers,  thus  creating  millionaires  and  mendicants 
and  inaugurating  class  rule  and  all  its  odious  and  undemocratic 
distinctions. 

At  this  point  I  deem  it  proper  to  introduce  the  platform  of 
the  Social  Democratic  party,  adopted  at  its  recent  national 
convention,  held  at  Indianapolis: 

The  Social  Democratic  Party  of  America  declares  that  life,  liberty  and 
happiness  depend  upon  equal  political  and  economic  rights. 

In  our  economic  development  an  industrial  revolution  has  taken  place, 
the  individual  tool  of  former  years  having  become  the  social  tool  of  the 
present.  The  individual  tool  was  owned  by  the  worker  who  employed 
himself  and  was  master  of  his  product.  The  social  tool,  the  machine,  is 
owned  by  the  capitalist  and  the  worker  is  dependent  upon  him  for  employ- 
ment. The  capitalist  thus  becomes  the  master  of  the  worker  and  is  able 
to  appropriate  to  himself  a  large  share  of  the  product  of  his  labor. 

Capitalism,  the  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  is  respon- 
sible for  the  insecurity  of  subsistence,  the  poverty,  misery  and  degradation 
of  the  ever-growing  majority  of  our  people  but  the  same  economic  forces 
which  have  produced  and  now  intensify  the  capitalist  system  will  necessitate 
the  adoption  of  Socialism,  the  collective  ownership  of  the  means  of  produc- 
tion for  the  common  good  and  welfare. 

The  present  system  of  social  production  and  private  ownership  is 
rapidly  converting  society  into  two  antagonistic  classes — i.  e.  the  capitalist 
class  and  propertyless  class.  The  middle  class,  once  the  most  powerful 
of  this  great  nation,  is  disappearing  in  the  mill  of  competition.  The  issue 


164  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

is  now  between  the  two  classes  first  named.  Our  political  liberty  is  now 
of  little  value  to  the  masses  unless  used  to  acquire  economic  liberty. 

Independent  political  action  and  the  trade  union  movement  are  the 
chief  emancipating  factors  of  the  working  class,  the  one  representing  its 
political,  the  other  its  economic  wing,  and  both  must  cooperate  to  abolish 
the  capitalist  system. 

Therefore  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of  America  declares  its  object 
to  be: 

i*  The  organization  of  the  working  class  into  a  political  party  to 
conquer  the  public  powers  now  controlled  by  capitalists. 

2.  The  abolition  of  wage-slavery  by  the  establishment  of  a  national 
system  of  cooperative  industry,  based  upon  the  social  or  common  ownership 
of  the  means  of  production  and  distribution,  to  be  administered  by  society 
in  the  common  interest  of  all  its  members,  and  the  complete  emancipation 
of  the  socially  useful  classes  from  the  domination  of  capitalism. 

The  working  class  and  all  those  in  sympathy  with  their  historic  mission 
to  realize  a  higher  civilization  should  sever  connection  with  all  capitalist 
and  reform  parties  and  unite  with  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of  America. 

The  control  of  political  power  by  the  Social  Democratic  Party  will  be 
tantamount  to  the  abolition  of  all  class  rule. 

The  solidarity  of  labor  connection  the  millions  of  class-conscious 
fellow-workers  throughout  the  civilized  world  will  lead  to  international 
Socialism,  the  brotherhood  of  man. 

As  steps  in  that  direction,  we  make  the  following  demands: 

1.  Revision   of   our   Federal    Cpnstitution   in   order  to   remove   the    ob- 
stacles   to    complete    control    of    government    by   the    people    irrespective    of 
sex. 

2.  The    public    ownership    of   all    industries    controlled    by    monopolies, 
trusts  and  combines. 

3.  The   public    ownership    of   all    railroads,    telegraphs    and   telephones; 
all  means  of  transportation,  and  communication;   all  water-works;   gas   and 
electric  plants,  and  other  public  utilities. 

4.  The   public   ownership   of   all   gold,    silver,    copper,   lead,   iron,   coal, 
and  other  mines,  and  all  oil  and  gas  wells. 

5.  The  reduction  of  the  hours  of  labor  in  proportion  to  the  increasing 
facilities  of  production. 

6.  The   inauguration   of   a   system    of  public   works    and   improvements 
for    the    employment   of    the    unemployed,    the    public   credit    to    be   utilized 
for  that  purpose. 

7.  Useful    inventions   to   be    free,   the   inventor   to   be   remunerated   by 
the  public. 

8.  Labor  legislation  to  be  national,  instead  of  local,  and  international 
when  possible. 

9.  National    insurance    of    working    people    against    accidents,    lack    of 
employment  and  want  in  old  age. 

10.  Equal    civil    and    political    rights    for    men    and    women,    and    the 
abolition  of  all  laws  discriminating  against  women. 

11.  The   adoption   of   the   initiative  and   referendum,   proportional   rep- 
resentation, and  the  right  of  recall  of  representatives  by  the  voters. 

12.  Abolition  of  war  and  the  introduction  of  international  arbitration. 


SOCIALISM  165 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Social  Democratic  party  is 
pledged  to  equal  rights  for  all  without  reference  to  sex,  color 
or  other  conditions.  Equality  of  rights  and  opportunities  for 
all  human  beings  is  the  vital  fundamental  principle  of  Socialism. 
It  aims  to  establish  economic  equality  by  making  all  equal  pro- 
prietors of  the  means  upon  which  all  depend  for  employment, 
and  without  which  there  can  be  no  "life,  liberty  and  pursuit  of 
happiness."  This  insures  economic  freedom  for  every  human 
being.  As  no  one  would  have  private  property  in  that  upon 
which  another  depended  for  employment,  industrial  mastery  and 
slavery  would  disappear  together  and  competition  for  profit 
would  give  way  to  cooperation  for  use. 

The  rapidly  changing  economic  conditions  are  paving  the 
way  for  the  transition  from  competitive  capitalism  to  coopera- 
tive Socialism.  Socialists  are  simply  indicating  the  trend  of 
the  evolution,  and  seeking  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  orderly 
reception.  The  coming  of  Socialism  is  with  them  not  a 
debatable  question.  That  is  not  a  matter  of  doubt  or  conjecture, 
but  of  scientific  calculation. 

The  evolution  of  the  social  organism  is  a  fact  in  nature. 
In  the  ceaseless  process  one  state  of  society  follows  another 
in  the  sequence  of  succession.  Capitalism,  the  present  system, 
was  warmed  into  life  in  the  womb  of  feudalism  and  sprang 
from  that  medieval  system.  Within  the  span  of  two  centuries 
this  system  has  practically  reached  the  climax  of  its  develop- 
ment, and  the  marvelous  material  progress  of  that  period 
exceeds  the  achievements  of  all  the  centuries  since  the  slaves 
of  Pharaoh  built  the  pyramids. 

The  rapid  centralization  of  capital  and  the  extensive  co- 
operation of  labor  mark  the  high  state  of  our  economic  develop- 
ment. Individual  initiative  and  competitive  effort  are  becoming 
less  and  less  possible.  The  day  of  small  production  has  passed 
never  to  return.  Notwithstanding  the  outcry,  trusts  and  depart- 
ment stores,  these  great  modern  agencies,  increase  in  number 
and  power.  They  are  the  inevitable  outgrowth  of  the  com- 
petitive system.  The  efforts  of  small  capitalists  to  destroy  trusts 
will  prove  as  fruitless  as  the  efforts  of  workingmen  to  destroy 
labor  saving  machines  when  first  introduced  in  the  last  century. 

Socialists  take  the  ground  that  the  trust  in  itself  is  not  an 
evil,  that  the  evil  lies  wholly  in  the  private  ownership,  and  its 


13 


166  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

operation  for  private  profit.  The  remedy  is  collective  owner- 
ship and  they  propose  to  transfer  all  such  agencies  from  private 
hands  to  the  collectivity,  to  be  managed  and  operated  for  the 
good  of  all. 

Ignoring  all  such  alleged  issues  as  "expansion,"  "imperial- 
ism," "free  silver,"  "gold  standard,"  "protection,"  "free  trade," 
etc.,  the  Social  Democratic  party  declares  that  economic  freedom 
is  the  supreme  question  that  confronts  the  people.  A  century 
and  a  quarter  ago  the  revolution  settled  the  question  of  political 
equality  in  the  United  States.  But  since  then  an  industrial  revo- 
lution has  taken  place  and  political  equality  exists  in  name 
only,  while  the  great  mass  struggle  in  economic  servitude.  The 
working  class  are  dependent  upon  the  capitalist  class,  who  own 
the  machines  and  other  means  of  production;  and  the  latter 
class,  by  virtue  of  their  economic  mastery,  are  the  ruling  class 
of  the  nation,  and  it  is  idle  under  such  conditions  to  claim 
that  men  are  equal  and  that  all  are  sovereign  citizens.  No  man 
is  free  in  any  just  sense  who  has  to  rely  upon  the  arbitrary  will 
of  another  for  the  opportunity  to  work.  Such  a  man  works, 
and  therefore  lives,  by  permission,  and  this  is  the  economic 
relation  of  the  working  class  to  the  capitalist  class  in  the 
present  system. 

In  the  last  century  millions  of  workers  were  exploited  of  the 
fruit  of  their  labor  under  the  institution  of  chattel  slavery. 
Work  being  done  by  hand,  ownership  of  the  slave  was  a 
condition  necessary  to  his  exploitation.  But  chattel  slavery 
disappeared  before  the  march  of  industrial  evolution,  and  today 
would  be  an  economic  impossibility.  It  is  no  longer  necessary 
to  own  the  body  of  the  workingman  in  order  to  appropriate 
the  fruit  of  his  labor ;  it  is  only  necessary  to  own  the  tool  with 
which  he  works,  and  without  which  he  is  helpless.  This  tool 
in  its  modern  form  is  a  vast  machine  which  the  worker  cannot 
afford  to  buy,  and  against  which  he  cannot  compete  with  his 
bare  hands,  and  in  the  very  nature  of  the  situation  he  is  at  the 
mercy  of  the  owner  of  the  machine,  his  employment  is  precarious 
and  his  very  life  is  suspended  by  a  slender  thread. 

Then,  again,  the  factory  and  mine  are  operated  for  profit 
only  and  the  owner  can,  and  often  does,  close  it  down  at  will, 
throwing  hundreds,  perhaps  thousands,  out  of  employment  who, 
with  their  families,  are  as  helpless  as  if  in  the  desert  wastes  of 
Sahara.  The  recent  shutdown  of  the  American  Wire  and  Steel 


SOCIALISM  167 

Trust  in  the  interest  of  stock  jobbery  presented  a  startling  object 
lesson  of  economic  dependence  of  the  working  class. 

The  few  who  own  the  machines  do  not  use  them.  The 
many  who  use  them  do  not  own  them.  The  few  who  own 
them  are  enabled  to  exploit  the  many  who  use  them;  hence  a 
few  millionaires  and  many  mendicants,  extreme  opulence  and 
abject  poverty,  princely  palaces  and  hideous  huts,  riotous  ex- 
travagance and  haggard  want,  constituting  social  scenes  sick-, 
ening  to  contemplate,  and  in  the  presence  of  which  the  master 
hand  of  Hugo  or  Dickens  is  palsied  and  has  no  mission. 

The  Social  Democratic  party  is  organizing  in  every  village 
and  hamlet,  every  town  and  city  of  every  state  and  territory 
in  the  Union.  It  has  held  its  national  convention,  its  candidates 
are  in  the  field,  and  it  is  appealing  to  the  American  people.  It 
will  neither  fuse  nor  compromise.  It  proposes  to  press  forward, 
step  by  step,  until  it  conquers  the  political  power  and  secures 
control  of  government. 

This  will  mark  the  end  of  the  capitalist  system.  The  fac- 
tories and  mills  and  mines,  the  railroads  and  telegraph  and 
telephone,  and  all  other  means  of  production  and  distribution 
will  be  transferred  to  the  people  in  their  collective  capacity, 
industry  will  be  operated  cooperatively,  and  every  human  being 
will  have  the  "inalienable  right"  to  work  and  to  enjoy  the  fruit 
of  his  labor.  The  hours  of  labor  will  be  reduced  according  to 
the  progress  of  invention.  Rent,  interest  and  profit  will  be  no 
more.  The  sordid  spirit  of  commercial  conquest  will  be  dead. 
War  and  its  ravages  will  pass  into  history.  Economic  equality 
will  have  triumphed,  labor  will  stand  forth  emancipated,  and 
the  sons  and  daughters  of  men  will  glorify  the  triumphs  of 
Social  Democracy. 


SOCIALISM  VERSUS  OTHER  FORMS  OF 
RADICALISM 

North  American  Review.      196:9-19.     July,   1912 

Syndicalism.    Louis  Levine 

The  world  has  been  startled  of  late  by  the  appearance  of  a 
new  actor  in  the  drama  of  social  life.  Coming  at  a  juncture 
when  he  was  least  expected,  the  new  dramatis  persona  at  once 
upset  the  situation  which  he  found  and  began  accelerating  the 
movement  of  events  and  passions.  He  came  but  yesterday,  but 
his  determined  planning  and  intense  action  have  already  made  it 
clear  that  he  has  a  momentous  part  to  play  and  that  the  devel- 
opment of  the  social  drama  will  in  no  small  measure  depend 
upon  what  he  wills  and  does. 

This  new  dramatic  persona  is  the  Syndicalist.  But  a  short 
while  ago  he  may  have  been  considered  a  peculiar  product  of 
that  peculiar  country,  France,  which  has  furnished  the  world  for 
nearly  a  century  with  "freakish"  social  ideas  and  "fantastic" 
social  schemes.  But  now  no  one  can  any  longer  hold  that  view. 
The  Syndicalist  has  invaded  "common-sense"  England  and  has 
raised  his  voice  in  the  "land  of  the  free."  He  has  become  an 
international  figure,  and  his  ideas  are  of  significance  to  the 
entire  world. 

Taken  by  surprise,  however,  the  world  has  not  had  an  oppor- 
tunity as  yet  properly  to  measure  the  new-comer,  to  find  out 
what  he  wants.  In  fact,  the  task  is  not  so  easy.  It  would  seem 
that  the  Syndicalist  really  had  nothing  to  wish  that  had  not 
already  been  supplied.  It  would  seem  that  in  a  world  where 
Trade-Unionist,  Social  Reformer,  Socialist,  and  Anarchist  vied 
with  one  another  in  curing  all  the  social  evils  of  the  times,  no 
new  brand  of  "ism"  was  possible  and  no  room  left  for  an  "ist" 
of  a  new  kind.  The  fact,  however,  cannot  be  argued  away:  the 
new  "ist"  is  here  and  proclaims  he  has  a  new  message  for  the 
world.  There  must  be,  then,  something  in  Syndicalism  which 
differentiates  it  from  any  other  known  "ism,"  and  the  question 
naturally  arises,  What  is  it? 


i;o  SEIECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

In  a  general  way  the  answer  may  be  given  at  the  very  outset. 
Syndicalism  is  an  attempt  to  combine  Socialism  and  Trade- 
Unionism  in  a  higher  synthesis  in  which  the  labor  unions  should 
become  the  basis  of  Socialism,  and  Socialism  the  ideal  expres- 
sion of  the  unions.  Such  a  synthesis  necessarily  presupposes 
certain  modifications  in  the  structure  and  ideas  of  both  .Socialism 
and  Trade-Unionism,  and,  like  every  other  synthesis,  contains 
something  that  was  not  present  in  its  constituent  elements. 

The  Syndicalist  synthesis  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  entirely 
sudden  phenomenon  in  the  world  of  social  thought  and  practice. 
On  the  contrary,  it  can  be  traced  back  to  the  "International 
Association  of  Workingmen"  founded  in  1864,  and  even  further 
back  to  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  when  both  Social- 
ism and  Trade-Unionism  were  making  their  first  awkward  steps. 
It  is  not  at  all  strange  that  this  should  be  so.  Syndicalism  is  the 
child  of  peculiar  conditions  and  of  a  peculiar  psychology  closely 
bound  up  with  Socialism  and  Trade-Unionism.  It  is  but  natural, 
therefore,  that  it  should  be  found  in  some  rudimentary  form  in 
the  early  stages  of  the  social  movement  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury and  that  the  Syndicalism  of  today  should  be  the  mature 
fruit  of  seed  sown  long  ago. 

It  will  be  easier  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  fruit  by  first 
analyzing  the  seed  and  by  examining  the  environment  in  which 
it  struck  root  and  grew.  The  seed  was  the  idea  of  Socialism. 
Ever  since  the  problem  of  labor  in  its  modern  phase  arose,  in 
the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century,  one  solution  offered  was 
to  solve  the  labor  problem  by  dissolving  the  wages-system.  As 
a  rule,  this  solution  came  from  the  so-called  better,  and  certainly 
better  educated,  classes  of  society  who  were  deeply  moved  by 
the  sufferings  of  the  working-class.  Accustomed  to  abstract  and 
general  reasoning,  these  representatives  of  the  middle  classes 
and  of  the  aristocracy  sought  for  the  general  causes  of  the  social 
evils  and  found  them  in  the  institution  of  private  property  and 
in  competition.  They  therefore  called  upon  society  to  do  away 
with  private  property  and  to  reorganize  industry  on  the  basis  of 
collective  solidarity  and  collective  responsibility.  As  a  recom- 
pense for  following  their  advice,  they  held  out  to  the  world  the 
promise  of  a  new  social  era  in  which  Equality,  Liberty,  and 
Fraternity  would  truly  reign  supreme. 

Born  amidst  the  upper  classes,  the  idea  of  Socialism  soon 
swept  a  portion  of  the  working-class.  A  number  of  intelligent, 


SOCIALISM  171 

active,  and  ambitious  working-men  were  charmed  and  fascinated 
by  the  grand  visions  of  Socialism  and  became  ardently  devoted 
to  the  cause  of  emancipating  their  fellow  working-men  from  the 
"thraldom"  of  the  wages-system.  The  ideal  of  industrial  free- 
dom, social  equality,  and  intellectual  opportunities  thrilled  their 
souls  with  the  deepest  enthusiasm,  and  they  felt  themselves  to 
be  the  inspired  leaders  in  a  great  historic  movement  which,  in 
their  opinion,  was  to  liberate  their  class  and  to  rejuvenate  the 
world. 

The  militant  Socialist  working-man  soon  found  out,  however, 
that  his  task  was  not  easy  and  that  his  situation  was  full  of 
inner  contradictions.  In  the  Socialist  organizations  of  all  types — 
secret,  revolutionary,  educational,  and  so  forth — which  he  fre- 
quented he  was  at  all  times  thrown  together  with  more  or  less 
numerous  descendants  of  the  middle  class  who  were  attracted  to 
Socialism  for  various  reasons  and  who  claimed  the  part  of 
intellectual  leaders  in  the  Socialist  movement.  These  "intellec- 
tuals," as  they  were  dubbed  by  the  working-men,  surely  possessed 
superior  lights  and  were  better  fitted  by  training  and  experience 
for  the  role  of  leaders.  The  Socialist  working-man  was  loath, 
however,  to  acknowledge  this.  Awakened  to  a  sense  of  the  his- 
torical importance  of  his  class,  enthused  by  the  idea  of  social 
equality,  thrilled  by  the  sentiment  of  his  own  intellectual  growth, 
he  resented  any,  suggestion  of  inequality  within  the  Socialist 
ranks  themselves,  and  watched  with  suspicion  and  ill  feeling 
the  tendency  of  the  "intellectuals"  toward  leadership  and  pre- 
dominance. He  could  not  at  all  times  effectively  counteract  it. 
But  he  was  always  ready  to  turn  upon  the  middle-class  "intel- 
lectuals" to  whose  intuition  and  reasoning  he  owed  the  idea  of 
Socialism,  and  to  start  a  movement  in  which  his  own  predom- 
inance would  not  be  threatened.  This  tendency,  on  the  part  of 
the  militant  Socialist  working-man,  runs  like  a  thread  through 
the  whole  history  of  modern  Socialism. 

On  the  other  hand,  turning  to  his  own  class,  the  militant 
Socialist  working-man  soon  convinced  himself  that  he  could  not 
get  at  once  the  response  he  so  hopefully  expected.  The  large 
mass  of  the  working-class  was  actuated  by  simpler  and  more 
elementary  motives.  It  wanted  some  improvement  right  now  and 
here,  it  cared  more  for  things  than  for  principles,  it  had  a  keener 
feeling  for  the  pangs  of  the  stomach  than  for  the  pains  of 
the  heart  or  brain.  The  Socialist  working-man  regretted  and 


172  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

deplored  this  state  of  affairs,  but  he  could  not  ignore  it.  After 
all,  he  was  a  working-man  himself,  who  knew  by  bitter  experi- 
ence what  it  meant  to  be  in  want.  He  had  to  adapt  himself, 
therefore,  to  the  conditions  and  psychology  of  his  class  and 
to  take  an  interest  in  their  immediate  demands  if  he  wanted 
them  to  take  an  interest  in  his  far-away  ideal.  As  a  rule, 
the  mass  of  the  workers  hit  independently  upon  the  means  of 
improving  their  immediate  conditions — means  which  hinged  upon 
the  idea  of  combination  and  organization,  and  which  resulted  in 
the  rise  and  development  of  Trade-Unionism.  The  militant 
Socialist  working-man  was  thus  driven  to  do  his  share  in  the 
work  of  the  Trade-Unions,  for  there  was  no  hope  for  him  out- 
side the  ranks  of  his  own  class. 

But  entering  the  Trade-Union,  the  Socialist  working-man 
never  lost  sight  of  his  ideal.  Nor  did  he  lose  his  impatience 
with  existing  conditions  or  his  feverish  hope  to  bring  about  his 
ideal  as  soon  as  possible.  He  was  a  social  Faust  within  whose 
breast  two  souls  resided — one  clinging  to  the  sufferings  and 
demands  of  his  class  in  the  present,  the  other  sweeping  "the 
dust  of  the  present  above  into  the  high  spaces"  of  Socialism  in 
the  future.  But,  like  Faust,  he  was  not  content  to  have  his 
breast  rent  in  twain.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  intent  upon  real- 
izing, as  soon  as  possible,  a  harmonious  union  of  the  conflicting 
feelings,  ideas,  and  aspirations  which  his  peculiar  economic, 
political,  and  intellectual  existence  called  into  being. 

The  history  of  the  Socialist  movement  reveals  the  gropings 
of  the  militant  Socialist  working-man  for  the  unity  just  spoken 
of,  and  this  is  why  rudimentary  Syndicalist  ideas  may  be  found 
all  along  in  the  social  movement  of  the  nineteenth  century.  But 
before  Syndicalism  could  assume  its  present  developed  form,  it 
was  necessary  that  the  conditions  described  above  should  become 
more  pronounced  and  accentuated.  This  was  brought  about  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  past  century  by  a  complicated  chain  of 
economic,  political,  and  other  causes. 

In  the  nineties  of  the  past  century  the  Socialists  had  their 
first  big  electoral  successes  in  France,  Germany,  and  other  coun- 
tries. They  not  only  polled  a  large  number  of  votes,  but 
succeeded  in  electing  many  of  their  members  to  national  and 
municipal  legislative  bodies.  The  result  was  a  change  in  the 
composition  and  character  of  the  Socialist  parties.  The  latter 
were  everywhere  invaded  by  large  and  new  sections  of  the 


SOCIALISM  173 

middle  class,  particularly  by  representatives  of  the  liberal  pro- 
fessions such  as  doctors,  lawyers,  teachers,  and  so  forth,  who 
swamped  the  Socialist  working-men  in  all  positions  of  authority 
and  responsibility  in  the  Socialist  party,  Socialist  press,  and 
Socialist  parliamentary  groups.  The  invading  "intellectuals" 
carried  with  them  their  group  feelings,  their  habits  of  mind,  and 
their  methods  of  procedure.  They  introduced  into  the  Socialist 
movement  the  ideas  of  slow  evolutionary  changes,  of  a  gradual 
"growing-in"  into  Socialism,  of  peaceful  and  diplomatic  negotia- 
tions with  "capitalist"  political  parties.  They  extolled  the  import- 
ance and  influence  of  legislative  bodies  in  which  they  could 
display  their  general  knowledge,  oratorical  powers,  and  resplen- 
dent qualities.  In  a  word,  they  imparted  to  Socialism  that 
exclusively  political  and  legislative  character — smooth  and  mod- 
.erate — which  has  in  recent  years  both  surprised  and  soothed 
the  world. 

At  the  same  time  the  political  Socialists  were  not  slow  to 
show  their  intention  of  subordinating  the  economic  organizations 
of  the  working-class  to  the  political  party.  To  the  political 
Socialist  the  Trade-Union  could  not  but  appear  as  a  secondary 
organization  which  wrangles  with  employers  over  minor  matters 
and  which  is  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  great  political 
organization.  The  political  Socialist  could  value  the  Trade- 
Union  mainly  as  a  field  for  recruiting  new  Socialist  converts  and 
could  expect  nothing  more  from  an  organization  which,  in  his 
opinion,  was  to  disappear  after  the  triumph  of  Socialism  and 
which  could  play  but  a  subordinate  part  in  the  movement  toward 
a  Socialist  victory  to  be  brought  about  by  capturing  the  political 
machinery  of  the  State. 

The  change  in  the  character  of  Socialism — its  marked  evolu- 
tion in  the  direction  of  an  exclusively  political,  peaceful,  and 
legal  movement — blazed  into  fire  the  embers  of  discontent  which 
had  slumbered  in  the  breast  of  the  militant  Socialist  working- 
man.  The  latter  was  alarmed  by  the  success  of  political  Social- 
ism, which,  in  his  opinion,  was  dangerous  to  the  real  success  of 
the  Social  Revolution.  The  militant  working-man  suspected  the 
environment  of  Parliament,  its  methods  and  political  trickery, 
and  felt  in  his  heart  a  growing  antagonism  to  a  form  of  action 
which  led  the  Socialists  into  the  stifling  embrace  of  "capitalist" 
parliamentary  institutions.  The  militant  Socialist  working-man 
therefore  began  to  look  about  for  another  form  of  social  move- 


174  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

ment  which  would  embody  his  revolutionary  spirit,  preserve  his 
hope  of  a  speedy  emancipation,  and  secure  for  him  equality 
within  the  organization.  He  had  groped  for  such  a  movement 
for  years  and  years.  He  had  organized  secret  revolutionary 
societies,  he  had  tried  Socialist  cooperatives,  he  had  attempted 
open  revolt.  But  his  previous  attempts  had  been  unsuccessful, 
and,  furthermore,  former  methods  were  no  longer  applicable 
under  the  new  conditions  of  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  The  militant  working-man  saw  that  the  development 
of  democracy  and  the  expansion  of  industry  had  made  necessary 
a  form  of  organization  which  would  be  broad  enough  to  include 
large  masses  and  flexible  enough  to  be  capable  of  both  political 
and  economic  action.  Examining  more  closely  the  nature  of 
the  Trade-Union  in  which  he  had  always  played  some  part,  the 
militant  Socialist  working-man  was  struck  by  the  idea  that  it 
offered  the  form  of  organization  he  was  so  eagerly  looking  for 
and  that  it  was  capable  of  carrying  on  the  social  movement  in 
which  he  placed  his  hopes.  He  therefore  now  changed  his  for- 
mer attitude  to  the  Trade-Union;  instead  of  merely  suffering  it, 
he  now  began  actively  to  support  it  and  to  shape  it  in  accordance 
with  his  views  and  aspirations. 

By  a  process  of  careful  reasoning  and  under  the  influence 
of  experience  the  militant  Socialist  workingman  gradually  de- 
veloped the  whole  theory  of  syndicalism  in  which  the  syndicat 
— or  labor  union — is  the  basis,  end,  and  means.  The  syndicat — 
according  to  this  theory — is  the  organization  which  first  brings 
the  workingmen  together,  binds  them  by  ties  of  common  inter- 
est, develops  in  them  the  sentiment  of  solidarity,  and  consoli- 
dates them  into  a  coherent  self-conscious  class.  Organized  in 
the  syndicats,  the  workingmen  are  in  a  position  to  enter  into  a 
direct  struggle  with  employers  and  the  State  for  better  conditions 
of  life  and  work.  Direct  action — which  the  syndicalists  so  much 
insist  upon — consists  in  exerting  energetic  pressure  and  coercion 
on  the  employers  and  the  State  in  such  a  manner  as  to  rally 
all  the  workers  around  one  banner  in  direct  opposition  to  exist- 
ing institutions.  Nation  wide  strikes,  vehement  agitation,  public 
demonstrations,  and  like  procedures,  which  arouse  passions  and 
shake  up  the  mass  of  the  workingmen,  are  in  the  view  of  the 
syndicalists  the  only  method  which  can  make  the  workingmen 
clearly  perceive  the  evils  and  contradictions  of  present-day 
society  and  which  lead  to  material  successes.  Such  methods 


SOCIALISM  175 

alone  drive  home  to  the  workingmen  the  truth  that  the  emanci- 
pation of  the  workers  must  and  can  be  the  work  of  the  workers 
themselves,  and  free  the  latter  from  the  illusion  that  anybody 
else — even  their  representatives  in  Parliament — can  do  the  job 
for  them.  By  constantly  bringing  workingmen  into  open  and 
sharp  conflict  with  employers,  direct  action,  in  all  its  mani- 
festations, necessarily  undermines  the  foundations  of  existing 
society  and  fortifies  the  position  of  the  working  class.  Every 
successful  strike,  every  victory  of  labor — when  gained  by  ener- 
getic pressure  and  direct  action — is  regarded  by  the  syndicalists 
as  a  blow  directed  against  capitalism  and  as  a  strategic  point 
occupied  by  the  workers  on  their  way  toward  final  emancipation. 
Reforms,  therefore,  gained  and  upheld  by  direct  action  do 
not  strengthen  existing  society,  but,  on  the  contrary,  dilapi- 
date it  and  pave  the  way  for  a  complete  and  violent  social 
transformation. 

The  latter,  in  the  opinion  of  the  syndicalists,  is  inevitable. 
The  direct  struggle  of  the  syndicats — argue  they — increasing  in 
scope  and  importance,  must  finally  lead  to  a  decisive  collision 
in  which  the  two  antagonistic  classes — the  working  class  and  the 
employers — will  be  brought  face  to  face.  How  that  decisive 
struggle  will  be  begun  cannot  be  foretold.  But  it  most  probably 
will  have  its  origin  in  a  strike  which,  spreading  from  industry 
to  industry  and  from  locality  to  locality,  will  involve  the  whole 
country  and  affect  the  entire  nation.  This  will  be  the  general 
strike,  in  which  the  issue  will  not  be  an  increase  of  wages  or 
any  other  minor  matter,  but  the  paramount  social  issue:  who 
shall  henceforth  control  industry  and  direct  the  economic 
activities  of  the  nation? 

The  syndicalists  will  not  wait  for  Parliament  to  decide  that 
question,  but  will  take  matters  into  their  own  hands.  When  the 
"final  hour  of  emancipation"  strikes,  the  militant  workingmen 
organized  in  the  syndicats  will  step  in  and  assume  control  of 
all  means  of  production,  transportation,  and  exchange.  They 
will  proclaim  the  common  ownership  of  all  means  of  production, 
and  will  start  production  under  the  direction  of  the  syndicats. 
Every  syndicat  will  have  the  use  of  the  means  of  production 
necessary  for  carrying  on  its  work.  All  syndicats  of  a  locality 
will  be  organized  in  local  federations  which  will  have  charge 
of  all  local  industrial  matters.  These  local  federations  of  labor 
will  collect  all  statistics  pertaining  to  local  production  and  con- 


i;6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

sumption,  will  provide  the  raw  material,  and  will  act  as  inter- 
mediaries between  a  locality  and  the  rest  of  the  country.  All 
syndicats  of  the  country  in  any  one  industry  will  be  organized 
in  a  national  industrial  federation  having  charge  of  the  special 
interests  of  the  industry,  while  local  federations  and  industrial 
federations  will  be  organized  in  one  great  national  federation 
of  labor  which  will  take  care  of  matters  national  in  scope  and 
importance. 

This  ideal,  according  to  the  syndicalists,  is  not  a  scheme  or 
a  Utopia  whose  realization  depends  upon  the  good-will  or 
wisdom  of  any  individual  or  individuals.  It  is  a  social  system 
gradually  evolved  by  the  synicalist  movement  and  gradually  pre- 
pared by  the  social  struggles  of  today.  The  framework  of  the 
ideal  society  is  being  built  every  day  by  the  growth  of  organi- 
zations among  the  workingmen,  by  the  ever-spreading  network 
of  syndicats,  local,  industrial,  and  national  federations.  And 
the  intellectual  and  moral  qualities  necessary  for  controlling 
society  are  gradually  acquired  by  the  workingmen  in  their 
organizations,  in  their  struggle,  and  in  their  everyday  experiences. 

Here,  in  this  theory,  the  militant  workingman  finally  achieved 
the  synthesis  he  was  groping  for.  The  Syndicat — or  labor 
union — kept  out  the  middle  class  "intellectual,"  barred  the 
politician,  and  made  compromise  impossible.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  secured  the  leadership  of  the  revolutionary  workingman, 
brought  him  into  a  direct  struggle  with  employers  and  the  state, 
and  offered  him  the  image  of  his  future  ideal  society.  It  promi- 
nently held  before  him  the  fact  that  his  salvation  lay  in  his  own 
hands,  in  the  weapons  forged  by  himself,  in  direct  action  and 
the  general  strike.  The  syndicalist  workingman  could,  there- 
fore, now  counteract  the  "pernicious"  influence  of  the  political 
Socialist  and  work  for  the  social  revolution  in  his  own  way  and 
through  his  own  organizations.  The  cause  of  the  workingmen 
was  now  in  safe  hands,  and  his  profound  yearning  for  a  speedy 
social  emancipation  was  gratified. 

There  are  several  reasons  why  syndicalism  first  developed 
in  France  and  why  it  achieved  there  its  most  notable  success. 
France,  before  other  countries,  witnessed  those  changes  in  the 
character  of  Socialism  which  were  described  above.  France 
was  the  first  country  to  have  a  Socialist  minister,  M.  Millerand, 
and  to  reveal  the  "demoralizing"  effects  of  Parliament  on  the 


SOCIALISM  177 

Socialists.  France,  besides,  is  rich  in  revolutionary  traditions 
which  at  all  times  fed  the  revolutionary  feelings  of  the  militant 
workingfnen.  Thirdly,  the  French  syndicats  began  to  develop 
only  at  the  time  when  Socialism  was  becoming  insufficient  for 
the  militant  workingmen,  and  the  latter  had  therefore  little 
difficulty  in  capturing  the  syndicats.  When  the  General  Con- 
federation of  Labor  (La  Confederation  General  du  Travail) 
was  formed  in  1895,  it  was  soon  brought  under  the  combined 
influence  of  Socialist  and  Anarchist  workingmen,  who  steered 
the  organization  in  the  direction  of  revolutionary  methods  and 
syndicalist  ideas.  The  success  of  the  General  Confederation  was 
due  to  their  energetic  action  and  devotion,  and  the  influence 
of  their  ideas  grew  in  consequence.  The  General  Confedera- 
tion has  grown  steadily  since  1902,  and  has  now  about  500,000 
members.  It  consists  of  local  and  industrial  federations  which 
in  their  turn  are  composed  of  single  syndicats,  and  presents, 
from  the  syndicalists'  point  of  view,  the  embryo  of  the  future 
society. 

In  England  the  situation  is  somewhat  different.  Syndicalists' 
ideas  had  their  exponents  among  English  workingmen  before, 
and  a  syndicalist  paper,  the-  Voice  of  Labor,  was  published  in 
1907.  But  syndicalism  did  not  make  headway  in  England  until 
Tom  Mann,  an  experienced  labor  leader,  was  converted  to  the 
new  ideas.  Tom  Mann  had  spent  some  years  in  the  labor  move- 
ment of  Australia,  and  was  disappointed  by  the  slowness,  un- 
certainty, and  trickery  of  the  political  game  which  the  Aus- 
tralian workingmen  played  in  the  hope  of  achieving  their  ends. 
He  then  went  to  France  and  underwent  there  the  influence  of 
the  syndicalists.  Since  then  Tom  Mann  has  been  actively 
propagating  syndicalist  ideas  in  England.  He  started  a  monthly, 
the  Industrial  Syndicalist,  in  1910,  and  under  his  influence  a 
syndicalist  organization  the  Industrial  Syndicalist  Education 
League,  was  formed  in  Manchester  toward  the  end  of  1910. 
The  Syndicalist  Education  League  is  now  publishing  the  Syndi- 
calist— a  monthly  devoted  to  the  propaganda  of  syndicalism  in 
England.  The  new  ideas  have  found  numerous  adherents,  par- 
ticularly among  the  workingmen  of  the  building  trades,  the 
transport  workers,  and  the  miners.  In  November,  1910,  the 
English  syndicalists  held  their  first  conference  in  Manchester, 
at  which  60,000  workers  were  represented.  Since  then  their 


i;8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

numbers  have  undoubtedly  increased  and  new  industrial  groups 
have  been  gained.  The  recent  strikes  in  England  show  that  at 
least  syndicalist  forms  of  organization  and  methods  are  forced 
upon  the  workingmen  by  the  powerful  combinations  of  employ- 
ers and  by  the  rather  ambiguous  policy  of  the  government.  The 
further  development  of  syndicalism  in  England  will  depend  on 
the  success  with  which  the  convinced  syndicalists  will  be  able 
to  "bore  from  within"  and  to  steer  the  trade  unions  in  the 
direction  of  the  new  doctrine,  while  the  success  of  their  efforts 
will  depend  on  economic  and  political  conditions. 

In  America  the  specter  of  syndicalism  first  appeared  in  the 
Lawrence  strike.  The  American  syndicalists,  the  Industrial 
Workers  of  the  World,  who  directed  the  strike  in  Lawrence, 
have  been  attracting  more  and  more  attention  since  and  have 
been  trying  to  make  syndicalism  a  factor  in  American  life. 
American  syndicalism  should  not  be  regarded  as  an  importation 
from  France.  Of  course,  American  syndicalists  have  been  more 
or  less  in  contact  with  French  syndicalists,  but  the  movement 
has  grown  up  on  American  soil  and  can  be  traced  back  to  the 
Knights  of  Labor.  The  latter  had  already  formed  a  vague  idea 
of  industrial  organization  which  is  so  actively  propagated  by 
the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World.  Craft  unionism,  how- 
ever, carried  the  day  in  America  after  1886,  and  achieved 
marked  success  in  the  development  of  the  American  Federation 
of  Labor.  The  idea  of  industrial  unionism,  nevertheless,  never 
died  out,  and  in  recent  years  has  been  gaming  ground  under  the 
influence  of  favorable  economic  conditions.  Finding  support 
among  Socialist  workingmen,  the  idea  of  industrial  unionism 
was  combined  with  the  Socialist  conception,  and  a  theory  re- 
sembling French  syndicalism  in  the  most  essential  points  was 
the  result.  This  theory  was  made  the  basis  of  the  program 
adopted  by  the  I.  W.  W.  in  1905. 

The  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World  differ,  however,  from 
the  French  syndicalists  in  their  attitude  toward  the  general 
strike.  The  former  conceive  the  social  revolution  not  as  a 
stoppage  from  work,  but  as  a  "staying  at  work."  According 
to  this  idea  the  workingmen  will  one  day  declare  the  means 
of  production  common  property,  but,  instead  of  leaving  the  fac- 
tories, will  stay  there  to  continue  production  on  a  Socialist  basis. 
The  difference,  however,  is  rather  verbal,  for  any  act  having  for 


SOCIALISM  179 

its  purpose  such  a  tremendous  change  will  lead  to  the  inter- 
ruption of  industrial  activities  at  least  for  some  time.  The 
I.  W.  W.  are,  besides,  more  in  favor  of  passive  resistance  and 
of  other  forms  of  struggle  which,  though  less  demonstrative 
and  noisy  than  the  methods  of  the  French  syndicalists,  are 
believed  to  give  the  workers  a  strategic  advantage  over 
employers. 

Syndicalism  is  primarily  a  working  class  movement  having 
for  its  end  the  solution  of  the  labor  problem.  But  its  plans 
are  so  far-reaching  and  involve  such  profound  social  changes 
that  society  as  a  whole  is  necessarily  affected.  What  has,  then, 
syndicalism  to  offer  to  those  classes  of  society  which  are  not 
occupied  in  manual  labor? 

The  syndicalists  have  recently  given  some  attention  to  this 
problem.  They  have  solved  it  by  extending  the  meaning  of 
labor  so  as  to  include  all  productive  work.  Teachers,  doctors, 
artists,  clerks,  and  the  like  have  been  organized  into  syndicats 
and  have  joined  the  army  of  organized  workers.  The  syndical- 
ists propose  to  organize  in  the  same  way  all  those  who  do  some 
useful  work  for  society,  or,  as  they  express  it,  to  "syndicalize" 
society.  Their  idea  is  to  transform  society  into  a  federation  of 
self-governing  productive  groups  working  together  for  the 
benefit  of  all  with  instruments  belonging  to  society  as  a  whole 
and  under  the  supreme  control  of  the  community. 

From  the  political  point  of  view,  therefore,  syndicalism  must 
be  regarded  as  an  attempt  to  transform  the  existing  political 
state  into  an  industrial  federation.  Syndicalism  hopes  thereby 
to  do  away  with  the  arbitrary  and  coercive  aspects  of  the 
modern  state  and  to  inaugurate  an  era  of  expert  public  service 
when  every  man  will  do  his  share  of  the  work  of  society  in 
that  field  alone  in  which  his  knowledge  and  skill  are  greatest. 

Syndicalism  is  ready  to  fight  any  organization  opposed  to 
it  and  ambitious  to  absorb  all  that  are  friendly  to  it.  It  must, 
therefore,  necessarily  arouse  the  hostility  not  only  of  the  con- 
servative elements  of  society,  but  even  of  reformers  and  political 
Socialists. 


i8o  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

Anarchy  versus  Socialism.    William  C.  Owen 

The  object  of  this  pamphlet  is  to  set  out  in  the  very  simplest 
language  at  our  command,  and  with  the  most  absolute  fidelity  to 
truth,  the  fundamental  bases  of  Anarchy  and  Socialism.  We 
believe  that  those  who  feel  impelled  to  take  an  interest  in  the 
great  social  questions  that  are  growling  for  solution  wish  to  act 
intelligently  and  understand  the  direction  in  which  they  are 
heading. 

All  movements  are  inspired  either  with  the  spirit  of  Anarchy, 
urging  the  claims  of  the  individual,  or  with  that  of  Socialism, 
urging  those  of  the  collectivity;  and  it  is  impossible  to  have  a 
clear  or  broad  conception  of  the  social  movement  of  today,  or 
of  any  single  branch  of  it,  without  having  first  acquired  a  clear 
conception  of  what  Anarchy  and  Socialism,  respectively,  have  to 
say  for  themselves. 

Anarchy  is  treated  at  the  greatest  length  in  this  pamphlet  for 
two  reasons :  First,  because  it  is  by  far  the  less  understood  of 
the  two  philosophies ;  and  secondly,  because  a  full  analysis  of 
the  Anarchist  position  will  be  found  to  have  cleared  the  way 
for  a  consideration  of  the  claims  of  Socialism. 

When  a  man  says  he  is  an  Anarchist  he  puts  on  himself  the 
most  definite  of  labels.  He  announces  that  he  is  a  "no  rule" 
man.  "Anarchy" — compounded  of  the  Greek  words  "ana,"  with- 
out, and  "arche,"  rule — gives  in  a  nutshell  the  whole  of  his 
philosophy.  His  own  conviction  is  that  men  must  be  free;  that 
they  must  own  themselves,  and  be  at  full  liberty  to  conduct  their 
lives,  free  from  the  orders  of  alleged  superiors. 

Your  life  belongs  to  you  and  to  you  alone;  no  invader  has 
the  right  to  trespass  on  it.  Similarly  you  have  no  right,  because 
you  fancy  yourself  a  wiser,  better,  or  specially  privileged  person, 
to  trespass  on  the  free  development  of  another's  life.  Over  that 
he,  or  she,  is  sovereign. 

Anarchists  do  not  propose  to  invade  the  individual  rights  of 
others,  but  they  propose  to  resist,  and  do  resist,  to  the  best  of 
their  ability,  all  invasion  by  others.  To  order  your  own  life, 
as  a  responsible  individual,  without  invading  the  lives  of  others, 
is  freedom ;  to  invade  the  attempt  to  rule  the  lives  of  others  is 
to  constitute  yourself  an  enslaver;  to  submit  to  invasion  and 
rule  imposed  on  you  against  your  own  will  and  judgment  is  to 
write  yourself  down  a  slave. 


SOCIALISM  181 

Essentially,  therefore,  Anarchism  stands  for  the  free,  unre- 
stricted development  of  each  individual;  for  the  giving  to  each 
equal  opportunity  of  controlling  and  developing  his  own  particu- 
lar life.  It  insists  on  equal  opportunity  of  development  for  all, 
regardless  of  color,  race,  or  class ;  on  equal  rights  to  whatever 
shall  be  found  necessary  to  the  proper  maintenance  and  develop- 
ment of  individual  life;  or  a  "square  deal"  for  every  human 
being,  in  the  most  literal  sense  of  the  term. 

Let  us  assure  you  that  there  is  not  an  Anarchist  in  the  world 
who  will  not  agree  with  the  above  simple  statement.  On  the 
necessity  of  Anarchy — a  life  free  from  external  rule — as  the 
fundamental  proposition,  all  Anarchists  are  absolutely  one. 

Moreover,  it  matters  not  to  the  Anarchist  whether  the  rule 
imposed  on  him  is  benevolent  or  malicious.  In  either  case  it  is 
an  equal  trespass  on  his  right  to  govern  his  own  life.  In  either 
case  the  imposed  rule  tends  to  weaken  him,'  and  he  recognizes 
that  to.be  weak  is  to  court  oppression. 

Every  Anarchist  holds  it  as  fundamental  that  he  can  decide 
for  himself  better  than  the  wisest  can  decide  for  him;  for  no  one 
knows  his  abilities  and  needs  as  he  himself  knows  them. 

Anarchism,  therefore,  is  the  most  clear-cut  of  words  and, 
consequently,  the  most  powerful.  Men  and  movements  are  power- 
ful just  in  proportion  as  they  see  distinctly  wrjat  they  want,  and 
it  is  precisely  because  we  Anarchists  see  so  distinctly  that  all  the 
exercisers,  and  the  would-be  exercisers,  of  power  the  world  over 
are  making  common  cause  against  us.  Naturally,  for  our  triumph 
means  death  to  their  rule. 

It  was  inevitable  that  all  exercisers,  or  would-be  exercisers, 
of  power  should  condemn  in  the  most  unqualified  terms  a  phil- 
osophy so  fatal  to  their  pretensions.  As  they  consider  that  they 
themselves  keep  the  entire  social  machinery  in  motion,  it  was 
entirely  natural  that  they  should  think  and  say :  "Why !  'No  rule' 
will  produce  general  disorder" — and  that  they  should  at  once 
twist  the  meaning  of  this  most  exact  work,  giving  it  the  sense 
of  universal  chaos.  The  masses  are  governed  far  more  by 
ingenious  misrepresentation  than  by  club  or  bullet. 

Anarchism  used  to  be  called  Individualism,  and  under  that 
title  it.  was  considered  more  than  respectable,  being,  in  fact, 
regarded  as  the  special  creed  of  culture.  But  the  term  was 
weak,  because  it  did  not  define.  People  called  themselves  Indi- 
vidualists just  as  they  called  themselves  Liberals,  without  under- 

14 


182  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

standing  what  "individualism"  really  implied,  or  the  freedom 
inherent  in  the  word  "liberalism."  So,  from  the  exact  Greek 
language  the  precise  and  unmistakable  word  "Anarchy"  was 
coined,  as  expressing  beyond  question  the  basic  conviction  that 
all  rule  of  man  by  man  is  slavery. 

The  pages  of  the  world's  foremost  teachers — its  scientists,  its 
philosophers,  its  poets,  and  dramatists — swarm  with  passages 
emphasizing  the  vital  importance  of  liberty;  the  necessity  of 
providing  a  favorable  environment  for  each  and  every  individ- 
ual; the  imperative  demand  for  equality  of  opportunity  for  indi- 
vidual development ;  but  in  too  many  cases  these  writers  fail  to 
sum  up  the  case  and  apply  their  principles  to  present  conditions 
as  we  Anarchists  sum  them  up  and  apply  them. 

The  entire  Anarchist  movement  is  based  on  an  unshakable 
conviction  that  the  time  has  come  for  men — not  merely  in  the 
mass,  but  individually — to  assert  themselves  and  insist  on  the 
right  to  manage  their  own  affairs  without  external  interference; 
to  insist  on  the  most  literal  "square  deal,"  unhampered  and 
unhandicapped  by  the  intervention  of  self-asserted  superiors." 

"The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man  and  not  man  for  the  Sab- 
bath." We  propose  henceforth  to  make  our  own  institutions  and 
to  be  their  masters.  We  have  come  to  manhood.  As  our  brains 
now  command  nature,  it  is  high  time  that  we  should  command 
ourselves.  Naturally  man  is  incomparably  the  most  powerful  of 
animals,  able  to  bring  into  existence  for  himself  all  that  is  needed 
for  a  rich  and  ample  life.  But  under  the  artificial  conditions  im- 
posed on  them  by  rulers,  who  portion  out  among  themselves  the 
means  of  life,  millions  of  the  powerful  species  known  as  "Man" 
are  reduced  to  the  conditions  of  abject  helplessness  of  which  a 
starving  timber-wolf  would  be  ashamed.  It  is  unspeakably  dis- 
gusting to  us,  this  helplessness  of  countless  millions  of  our  fel- 
low creatures;  we  trace  it  directly  to  stupid,  unnatural  laws,  by 
which  the  few  plunder  and  rule  over  the  many,  and  we  propose 
to  do  our  part  in  restoring  to  the  race  its  natural  strength,  by 
abolishing  the  conditions  that  render  it  at  present  so  pitiably  weak. 

Every  Anarchist  is  convinced  that  the  death-knell  of  slavery — 
.of  government  of  man  by  man — is  ringing;  that  the  chrysalis  of 
slavish  dependence  is  breaking,  and  from  it  there  is  about  to 
emerge  the  gorgeous  butterfly  of  a  free  existence,  in  which  each 
individual  shall  truly  possess  his,  or  her,  own  life,  with  all  the 
infinite  possibilities  that  life  contains. 


SOCIALISM  183 

Every  Anarchist  holds  that  mankind  has  run,  at  last,  the 
whole  gamut  of  experience  in  government;  tried  it  in  every  con- 
ceivable form,  and  found  it  invariably  wanting. 

For  centuries  we  permitted  the  rule  of  the  priest,  and  we 
were  choked  with  ignorance.  For  centuries  we  tried  the  rule 
of  the  king,  and  we  waded  in  our  own  blood.  For  the  last 
century,  or  more,  we  have  been  experimenting  with  the  rule  of 
democracy — the  bludgeoning  by  those  unspeakable  governors 
whom  majorities,  drunk  with  power,  impose  on  vanquished 
minorities.  This  last  is  probably  the  worst  of  all,  for  we  stand 
today  steeped  to  the  lips  in  a  universal  corruption  that  is  rotting 
every  nation  to  the  core. 

Is  it  not  a  fact  that,  whether  it  be  a  French  deputy  or  an 
English  member  of  Parliament ;  a  Republican,  a  Democrat,  or  a 
Socialist  candidate  for  office,  each  and  every  one  of  them  sings 
exactly  the  same  siren  song :  "Clothe  me  with  power,  and  I  will 
use  it  for  your  good"? 

Why  should  you  part  with  power,  making  yourselves  impotent 
that  a  favored  few  may  be  omnipotent?  By  so  doing  you  destroy 
the  splendid  equality  of  nature,  which  sends  us  all  into  the  world 
equally  naked ;  equipped  with  what  would  be,  under  natural 
conditions,  practically  equal  possibilities  of  self-development? 
It  is  you  yourselves,  governed  by  the  misrepresentations  of  super- 
stition, and  not  daring  to  lift  your  heads  and  look  life  in  the 
face,  who  substitute  for  that  magnificent  justice  the  hideously 
unjust  inequalities  with  which  society  is  sick  well-nigh  to  death. 
Does  not  the  experience  of  your  daily  life  teach  you  that  when, 
in  any  community,  any  one  man  is  loaded  with  power  it  is  always 
at  the  expense  of  many  others,  who  are  thereby  rendered  help- 
less? Do  you  not  know,  that  to  be  helpless  means  to  be  fleeced 
and  flayed  without  mercy;  to  be  hunted  from  land  to  land;  to- 
scour  the  farthermost  corners  of  the  earth  in  a  heart-breaking 
search  for  the  opportunity  to  make  a  living?  We  describe  in  a 
few  words  the  life  of  the  proletariat,  the  workingman  of  today — • 
that  enormous  class  that  has  given  away  its  natural  powers  and 
is  paying  such  an  awful  penalty  for  this,  the  sin  of  sins,  that 
nature  punishes  most  unmercifully. 

We  have  no  other  conception  than  that,  so  long  as  men 
remain  powerless,  they  will  be  robbed  remorselessly,  and  that  no 
pity  will  be  shown;  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  robber,  the 
strong  man,  in  his  heart  of  hearts  despises  his  victim  for  his 


184  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

weakness.  We  recognize  that  the  sole  remedy  is  for  the  weak 
to  win  back  their  natural  position  of  power,  abolishing  the  con- 
ditions of  helplessness  to  which  they  have  been  reduced  by  arti- 
ficial laws  and  unjust  privileges. 

The  helplessness  of  the  masses  is  not  a  subject  for  pity  or 
milk-and-water  charity,  but  for  the  strongest  indignation  that 
men  should  be  so  false  to  their  destiny  and  such  unspeakable 
traitors  to  their  great  Mother  Nature,  who,  with  infinite  pains 
and  through  the  evolution  of  countless  ages,  has  raised  them  to 
a  height  at  which  they  have  infinite  possibilities  at  command, 
which,  in  their  cowardice,  they  spurn. 

Do  not  natter  yourselves  that  you  can  shirk  this  imperative 
call  to  self-assertion  by  appointing  deputies  to  perform  the  task 
that  falls  to  you  and  to  you  alone.  Already  it  is  clear  to  all  who 
have  the  courage  to  look  facts  in  the  face  that  the  entire  repre- 
sentative system,  to  which  the  workers  so  fatuously  looked  for 
deliverance,  has  resulted  in  a  concentration  of  political  power 
such  as  is  almost  without  parallel  in  history. 

Our  entire  representative  system  is  the  quintessence  of  farce. 
We  take  a  number  of  men  who  have  been  making  their  living 
by  some  one  pursuit — in  most  cases  that  of  the  law — and  who 
know  nothing  outside  that  pursuit,  and  we  require  them  to  legis- 
late on  the  ten  thousand  and  one  problems  to  which  a  highly 
diversified  and  intricate  industrial  development  has  given  rise. 
The  net  result  is  work  for  lawyers  and  places  for  office-holders, 
together  with  special  privileges  for  shrewd  financiers  who  know 
well  how  to  get  little  jokers  inserted  in  measures  that  seem 
innocence  itself  and  are  always  fatal  to  the  people's  rights. 

The  political  Socialists  are  never  weary  of  telling  the  public 
that  the  present  economic  system  has  broken  down,  and  in  this 
they  are  profoundly  correct;  for  when  a  system  has  reached  a 
point  at  which  it  can  no  longer  supply  the  most  elementary  needs 
of  large  masses  of  men,  it  is  bankrupt.  But  it  seems  pathetically 
strange  to  us  that  these  same  Socialists  cannot  see  that  their 
criticism  of  the  economic  system  applies  with  still  greater  force 
to  the  entire  political,  representative  system,  which,  whether 
regarded  from  the  standpoint  of  honesty  or  of  efficiency,  has 
become  a  stench  in  the  nostrils  of  all  intelligent  and  fair-minded 
persons. 

In  economic  matters  the  Socialists  see  clearly  enough  that  a 
complete  change — a  true  revolution — is  needed,  but  they  still 


SOCIALISM  185 

believe  that  things  can  be  remedied  by  the  election  of  a  better  set 
of  deputies,  although  we  have  been  laboring  at  that  very  thing 
for  the  last  hundred  years,  and  the  situation  has  been  growing 
steadily  worse.  Their  great  German  leader,  August  Bebel,  has 
told  them  in  his  celebrated  book  that  "failure  is  ever  the  fate  of 
the  half  and  half."  Indeed  we  think  so. 

Anarchy  concentrates  its  attention  on  the  individual,  consider- 
ing that  only  when  absolute  justice  is  done  to  him  or  her  will  it 
be  possible  to  have  a  healthy  and  happy  society.  For  society  is 
merely  the  ordinary  citizen  multiplied  indefinitely,  and  as  long  as 
the  individuals  of  which  it  is  composed  are  treated  unjustly,  it  is 
impossible  for  the  body  at  large  to  be  healthy  and  happy. 
Anarchy,  therefore,  cannot  tolerate  the  sacrifice  of  the  individual 
to  the  supposed  interests  of  the  majority,  or  to  any  of  those 
highsounding  catchwords  (patriotism,  the  public  welfare,  and  so 
forth)  for  the  sake  of  which  the  individual — and  always  the 
weakest  individual,  the  poor,  helpless  workingman  and  woman — 
is  murdered  and  mutilated  today,  as  he  has  been  for  untold  ages 
past. 

Anarchy  demands  imperatively  that  full  and  complete  justice 
shall  be  done  to  each  and  every  individual;  that  there  shall  be 
accorded  to  all  full  and  equal  opportunities  for  the  develop- 
ment, conduct,  and  enjoyment  of  their  lives;  and  it  declares,  as 
an  incontestable  truth,  that  the  first  step  toward  this  inevitable 
goal  is  the  absolute  overthrow  of  all  those  artificial  and  life- 
destroying  privileges  by  which  a  favored  few  are  today  per- 
mitted to  gather  into  their  hands  unbounded  wealth  and  power 
at  the  price  of  the  impoverishment  and  slaughter  of  the 
masses. 

Let  no  one  delude  you  with  the  fable  that  we  Anarchists  are 
opposed  to  cooperation;  that  we  wish  to  reduce  mankind  to 
conditions  of  primitive  isolation.  On  the  contrary,  we  see  with 
perfect  clearness  that  the  favored  few,  who  have  at  their  com- 
mand the  means  of  so  doing,  cooperate  constantly  on  a  larger 
and  larger  scale,  as  the  improved  methods  of  communication 
enable  them  more  and  more  to  make  the  world  the  scene  of 
their  operations.  We  understand  thoroughly  that  it  is  only 
necessary  to  shake  off  the  shackles  of  poverty  and  helplessness 
in  order  to  enable  mankind,  as  a  whole,  to  rise  to  a  vast,  true, 
voluntary  cooperation,  in  which  the  entire  earth  and  its  fruits 
will  be  used  in  the  fullest,  widest,  and  most  economical  way  for 


186  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  satisfaction  of  the  wants  of  the  men,  women,  and  children 
born  into  it. 

We  are  of  the  firmest  opinion  that  the  only  goal  worthy  of 
consideration  by  clear-sighted  and  earnest  men  and,  women  is 
the  winning  of  such  individual  freedom  as  will  render  possible 
such  a  cooperation  as  we  have  just  described. 

We  hold  that  the  bold,  straight,  and  direct  way  will  be  found 
infinitely  the  shortest,  easiest,  and  most  successful.  We  are 
convinced  that  if  any  other  course  is  pursued,  and  it  is  sought 
by  a  series  of  makeshift  compromises  to  pave  the  way  for 
changes  to  be  wrought  out  in  a  vague  and  distant  future,  it 
will  be  discovered  finally  that  the  time  so  spent  has  been  worse 
than  wasted.  Only  by  a  direct  attack  on  monopoly  and  special 
privilege;  only  by  a  courageous  and  unswerving  insistence  on 
the  rights  of  the  individual,  whoever  he  may  be;  on  his  indi- 
vidual right  to  equality  of  opportunity;  to  an  absolutely  square 
deal;  to  a  full  and  equal  seat  at  the  table  of  life,  can  this  great 
social  problem,  with  which  the  whole  world  now  groans  in 
agony,  be  solved. 

In  a  word,  the  freedom  of  the  individual,  won  by  the  abo- 
lition of  special  privileges  and  the  securing  to  all  of  equal 
opportunities,  is  the  gateway  through  which  we  must  pass  to 
the  higher  civilization  that  is  already  calling  loudly  to  us. 

It  is  urged  that  we  Anarchists  have  no  plans ;  that  we  do  not 
set  out  in  detail  how  the  society  of  the  future  is  to  be  run. 
This  is  perfectly  true.  We  are  not  in  the  least  inclined  to 
waste  our  breath  in  guesses  about  things  we  cannot  possibly 
know.  We  are  not  in  the  business  of  putting  humanity  in  irons. 
We  are  trying  to  get  humanity  to  shake  off  its  irons.  We 
have  no  cooperative  commonwealth,  cut  and  dried,  to  impose 
on  the  generations  yet  unborn.  We  are  living  men  and  women, 
concerned  with  the  living  present,  and  we  recognize  that  the 
future  will  be  as  the  men  and  women  of  the  future  make  it, 
which  will  depend  on  themselves  and  the  conditions  in  which 
they  find  themselves.  If  we  bequeath  to  them  freedom  they 
will  be  able  to  conduct  their  lives  freely,  as  the  changed  and 
improved  conditions,  brought  about  by  the  growth  of  human 
intelligence  and  the  added  mastery  of  nature  that  will  spring 
from  such  intelligence,  may  dictate. 

It  is  not  for  us  to  say  that  they  shall  live  in  such  and  such 
a  form  of  cooperation  or  communism.  It  is  only  for  us  to  open 


SOCIALISM  187 

to  them  the  opportunities  for  leading  the  life  that  may  satisfy 
them  best.  Our  business  is  exclusively  with  the  slavery  that 
exists  here  and  now,  and  it  is  a  self-evident  proposition  that 
its  roots  lie  in  the  rule  of  man  over  man;  in  the  monopoly  of 
opportunities ;  in  the  denial  of  equal  rights ;  in  the  ignoring 
of  the  claims  of  the  individual  life. 

But  it  is  entirely  possible  for  us,  dealing  as  we  do  exclusively 
with  the  present,  to  analyze,  accurately  and  fearlessly,  the  pres- 
ent; to  point  out  the  steps  that  must  be  taken;  all  of  which 
mean  the  destruction  of  existing  privileges. 

Land  monopoly  must  go.  It  must  be  recognized  that  every 
child  of  man  is  a  full  and  equal  partner  in  the  resources  that, 
by  the  very  constitution  of  this  universe,  are  necessary  for  the 
maintenance  of  human  life;  that  without  land  we  cannot  exist, 
and  that,  to  enable  us  to  live  a  life  free  from  tribute,  we  must 
have  free  access  to  land.  This  is  absolutely  fundamental.  Until 
this  is  secured  it  is  mockery  to  talk  of  the  freedom  of  labor, 
for  without  being  masters  of  the  land  we  cannot  possibly  be 
free  producers. 

This  is  a  truth  so  obvious  that  it  is  admitted  by  thousands 
of  the  followers  of  different  reform  schools,  who  otherwise 
have  at  present  little  in  common;  but  how  the  end  agreed  on 
is  to  be  reached,  is^^question.  We  can  at  least  present  what 
appear  to  us  to  befl^E  of  the  methods  by  which  the  problem 
is  likely  to  be  sof^^r  First,  and  before  any  results  can  be 
looked  for,  there  must  be  brought  into  existence  a  far  more 
general  and  burning  conviction  than  there  is  at  present  that 
this  question  of  the  land  is  absolutely  fundamental.  When,  by 
persistent  and  intelligent  propaganda,  this  truth  has  been  driven 
home  to  the  more  receptive  minds,  it  is  inevitable  that  it  will 
crystallize  into  action,  and  probably  along  some  such  lines  as 
these:  Individuals  and  groups  will  squat  on  unoccupied  land, 
held  by  speculators,  and  will  refuse  to  vacate.  The  poor  will 
resist  eviction  more  and  more.  Dwellers  in  the  slums  of  such 
cities  as  New  York,  whose  lives  are  one  continual  struggle  to 
keep  body  and  soul  together,  will  decline  to  give  up  a  large 
portion  of  their  had-earned  wages  to  satisfy  the  demands  of 
absentee  idlers.  From  the  conflict  between  the  authorities 
endeavoring  to  enforce  the  law  and  those  who  take  their  stand 
on  human  rights  further  agitation  of  this  gigantic  crime  against 
the  race  will  result,  and  the  necessity  of  acception  and  carrying 


i88  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

into  practice  the  doctrine  that  the  earth  is  for  the  use  of  those 
who,  for  the  time  being,  find  themselves  living  upon  it,  will  be 
driven  still  deeper  into  the  public  conscience. 

We  think  it  waste  of  time  to  discuss  at  present  the  measures 
by  which  the  individual  will  be  ultimately  secured  of  this 
paramount  right,  since  it  is  obvious  that  the  first  step  is  the 
awakening  of  the  public  conscience  and  intellect.  The  move- 
ment must  for  a  long  time  to  come  work  itself  out  as  it  may, 
receiving  constant  impetus  from  such  direct  action  as  we  have 
just  described. 

All  honest,  intelligent,  and  courageous  action  along  one  line 
of  the  great  struggle  for  human  rights  helps  thought  and  action 
along  other  lines,  and  the  contest  that  is  certain  to  come  over 
the  land  question  cannot  but  clear  the  field  in  other  directions. 
It  will  be  seen,  for  example,  that  freedom  of  production  will 
not  suffice  without  freedom  of  distribution, — which  is  only  the 
final  process  of  production, — and  the  road  will  be  made  plain 
for  a  consideration  of  the  money  and  other  monopolies  that 
reign  supreme  in  that  great  department  of  human  activity, 
thanks  to  the  special  privileges  that  government  confers  upon 
them. 

It  will  be  seen  also  that  it  is  ridiculous  for  us  to  talk  about 
free  and  equal  citizens  when  one  child  i^^^rmitted  to  be  born 
into  the  world  heir  to  millions,  entitlec^B  BUY  to  levy  tribute 
for  the  rest  of  his  life  on  thousands  ^^^will  never  have  a 
chance  of  rising  from  poverty.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
the  unnatural  law  of  inheritance — whereby  the  dead  bind  the 
living — must  wither  before  the  light  of  criticism,  and  this  even 
our  president  sees. 

With  the  growing  sense  of  the  dignity  of  human  life  and 
the  claims  of  the  individual  must  necessarily  come  an  ever 
louder  demand  for  the  abolition  of  existing  methods  of  pun- 
ishment, founded,  as  they  are,  not  on  the  principle  of  reforming 
the  alleged  criminal,  but  on  that  of  revenge.  They  are  a  burn- 
ing disgrace  to  humanity;  are  rapidly  dragging  us  back  to 
conditions  of  savagery,  and  cannot  stand  a  moment's  inspection. 

With  the  increasing  appreciation  of  the  value  of  the  indi- 
vidual life  will  come  an  increasingly  drastic  criticism  of  all 
those  schools  of  thought  that  bid  the  oppressed  be  contented 
with  their  lot,  and  that  are  summed  up  in  the  spectacle  afforded 
by  those  truly  bloodless  fanatics  who  can  find  it  in  their  hearts 


SOCIALISM  189 

to  visit  the  workers  of  the  slums,  and  the  prisoners  in  the 
modern  hells  we  call  "penitentiaries,"  and  exhort  them  to  thank 
God  for  his  mercies.  The  religion  of  submission  will  receive 
its  death-blow.  It  is  a  craven,  skulking  thing,  utterly  incom- 
patible with  the  dignity  of  man  or  with  the  energy  and  courage 
which  nature  demands  of  those  who  desire  to  rise. 

There  will  come  also  a  drastic  criticism  of  that  vast  army 
of  lawyers  and  chronic  office-holders  who,  by  their  unfortunate 
training  and  the  necessities  of  their  profession,  can  see  only 
what  the  legal  code  demands,  and  are  insuperably  blind  to  the 
higher  code  of  life. 

What,  then,  is  our  actual  position?  We  stand  for  the  reali- 
ties of  life,  as  opposed  to  fine  phrases  on  which  the  people 
starve ;  for  the  omnipotent  laws  of  life,  as  opposed  to  the  dis- 
torted and  perverted  views  we  have  inherited  from  a  barbaric 
past,  dominated  by  the  fantastic  theories  of  priests  and  kings, 
under  which  the  few  have  reigned  supreme  and  the  masses  have 
been  mud,  trampled  remorselessly  under  foot.  From  those  dark, 
ages  we  are  only  just  beginning  to  emerge, — but  we  are  emerging. 

The  task  is  gigantic,  but  it  is  inevitable.  If  mankind  is  ever 
to  be  master  of  itself,  scientific  thought, — which  deals  with  reali- 
ties and  bases  its  conclusions  on  ascertained  facts,-nmist  take 
the  place  of  guess  ^dfcmperstition.  To  bring  the  t^pduct  of 
human  life  into  accH  Hi)  the  ascertained  facts  of  life  is,  at 
bottom,  the  great  strim^hat  is  going  on  in  society,  and  in  this 
great  struggle  we  Anarchists — we  say  it  confidently — stand  in  the 
very  front  rank. 

We  are  not  engaged  in  any  such  petty,  trivial  business  as  that 
of  building  up  a  political  party,  that  would  have  its  little  hour  of 
popularity  and  obnoxious  power,  and  then  stand,  an  irritating 
stumbling  block,  needing  removal. 

Our  work  is  solely  and  exclusively  to  drive  home  to  the 
intellects  and  consciences  of  the  people  at  large,  regardless  of 
classes,  the  conception  of  a  nobler,  richer,  and  infinitely  happier 
life,  possible  under  conditions  of  freedom,  economic  and  political, 
and  possible  under  them  alone.  What  we  are  doing  is  to  point 
out  the  gateway  through  which  the  people  must  first  pass,  before 
they  can  hope,  by  any  possibility,  to  attain  a  life  that  is  worth 
having  and  establish  that  absolutely  free,  voluntary  cooperation, 
in  which  each  stands  on  his  own  feet,  the  equal  partner  of  all 
with  whom  he,  or  she,  desires  to  enter  partnership.  Liberty,  and 


igo  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

liberty  alone,   can   beget   the  true   order  and  harmony   of  true 
cooperation. 

It  is  absolutely  self-apparent  to  us  that  when  men  find  them- 
selves relieved  of  their  present  burden  of  artificial,  unnatural, 
anti-social,  and  intrinsically  barbarous  laws,  they  will  then,  and 
for  the  first  time,  have  within  their  grasp  the  potentiality  of 
building  a  true  civilization  along  the  lines  sketched  out  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  wherein  each  human  being  will 
have  full  and  equal  opportunities  for  the  enjoyment  of  life, 
liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 

Our  movement  is  a  genuine  "Abolitionist"  movement.  It 
stands  for  the  abolition  of  barbaric  institutions  and  laws  that 
come  between  man  and  the  realization  of  a  full  and  joyous  life. 
It  is  the  legitimate  child  of  that  Abolition  movement  which 
resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  chattel  slavery,  and  we  have  great 
confidence  that  the  time  is  near  at  hand  when  this  country  will 
comprehend  that  fact  and  prove  true  to  her  past  history. 
,  It  is  only  the  most  thoughtless  who  can  fail  to  see  that  as 
intelligence  grows  there  also  grows,  at  a  geometrical  ratio,  the 
longing  for  a  life  in  which  the  individual  shall  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  guiding  his  life  by  the  light  of  his  own  reason,  in 
which  he  is  acquiring  more  and  more  confidence.  And  every 
step  wh^P  he  takes  in  this  direction^aJrich  is  surely  that  of 
advance  and  progress — is  carrying  hinfl  vd  Anarchy —  for,  as 
has  been  shown  already,  the  basis  of  il^Pmiarchist's  philosophy 
is  the  belief  that  reason  and  not  compulsion  should  be  the  motive 
power.  It  is  inevitable  that  there  should  be  this  tendency,  and 
an  examination  of  the  world  around  us  shows  that  the  tendency 
exists  and  is  growing  at  a  prodigious  rate. 

Everywhere  men  and  women  are  becoming  more  and  more 
restless  under  control.  They  reject  authority;  they  demand  the 
right  to  think  for  themselves;  they  dislike  more  and  more  to 
be  told  what  they  must  and  what  they  must  not  do.  They  rebel 
more  and  more  against  the  attempt  to  put  their  lives  into  a 
strait-jacket,  whether  it  be  the  strait-jacket  of  the  workshop  or 
creed ;  the  restriction  of  a  law  imposed  on  them  without  their 
consent,  or  a  marriage  tie  that  is  irksome  to  them.  And  it  is 
particularly  noticeable  that  this  rebellion  against  authority  is 
most  marked  among  women,  who  have  not  had  the  suffrage, 
showing,  as  it  does,  that  the  spirit  of  revolt  has  risen  as  some- 
thing entirely  apart  from  legislative  activities.  There  is  abso- 


SOCIALISM  191 

lutely  no  comparison  between  the  free-thinking,  free-acting 
woman  of  today  and  the  patient,  long-suffering  housewife  of 
only  a  generation  or  two  ago. 

In  short,  although  it  may  appear,  at  first  sight,  that  this  is 
the  day  of  great  collectivist  movements,  it  will  be  found  on 
examination  that  these  movements  are  all  participated  in  by 
individuals  who  hope  that  by  means  of  them  they,  as  individuals, 
will  secure  personal,  individual  advantages  along  the  line  of 
greater  individual  liberty  and  happiness ;  and  that  whenever  they 
discover  that  these  advantages  cannot  be  so  obtained,  they  drop 
such  movements.  The  mainspring  of  all  the  agitation  that  is 
rocking  the  world  today  is  the  hunger  for  individual  freedom 
and  prosperity,  and  it  is  this  on  which  our  movement  relies — on 
individual  wants,  individual  aspirations,  individual  action — the 
irrepressible  individual,  from  and  through  whom  all  chance  must 
come. 

We  pass  to  a  consideration  of  Socialism. 

Attention  has  been  called  already  to  the  precise  and  clear-cut 
character  of  the  word  "Anarchy";  that  it  means  "without  rule," 
and  that  it  cannot  be  construed  to  mean  anything  else.  Most 
unfortunately  the  word  "Socialism"  has  not  this  clear-cut  char- 
acter. Socialism  merely  means  association,  and  a  Socialist  is 
one  who  believes  in  associated  life  and  effort.  Immediately  a 
thousand  questions  £o"?' the  greatest  difficulty  arise.  Obviously 
there  are  different  WfcpSMn  which  people  can  associate;  some  of 
them  delightful,  and  some  quite  the  reverse.  It  is  delightful  to 
associate  yourself,  freely  and  voluntarily,  with  those  to  whom 
you  feel  attracted  by  similarity  of  tastes  and  pursuits.  It  is 
torture  to  be  herded  compulsorily  among  those  with  whom  you 
have  nothing  in  common.  Association  with  free  and  equal 
partners,  working  for  a  common  end  in  which  all  are  alike  inter- 
ested, is  among  the  things  that  make  life  worth  living.  But  the 
association  of  men  who  are  compelled  by  the  whip  of  authority 
to  live  together  in  an  army,  sharing  the  same  table,  the  same 
room,  and  forced  to  be  in  each  other's  company  day  after  day, 
even  when  their  personal  relations  are  bitterly  hostile,  is  about 
as  near  hell  as  it  is  possible  to  get. 

To  be  associated  in  governmentally  conducted  industries, 
whether  it  be  as  soldier  or  sailor,  as  railroad,  telegraph,  or  postal 
employee,  is  to  become  a  mere  cog  in  a  vast  political  machine, 
and  this  seems  to  us  as  undesirable  an  ideal  as  any  party  ever 


192  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

laid  before  the  public  in  its  struggle  to  catch  votes.  Under  such 
conditions  there  would  be  less  freedom  than  there  is  even  now, 
under  the  regime  of  private  monopoly;  the  workers  would  abdi- 
cate all  control  of  their  own  lives  and  become  a  flock  of  party 
sheep,  rounded  up  at  the  will  of  their  political  bosses,  taking 
what  those  bosses  chose  to  give  them,  and,  in  the  end,  being 
thankful  to  be  allowed  to  hold  a  job  on  any  terms,  however 
humiliating.  A  more  undesirable  ideal  we  cannot  imagine,  and 
we  say  confidently  that  the  more  closely  it  is  examined  the  more 
undesirable  it  will  appear. 

Let  none  delude  himself  with  the  fallacy  that  governmental 
institutions  under  Socialist  administration  would  be  shorn  of 
their  present  objectionable  features.  They  would  be  precisely 
what  they  are  today.  If  the  workers  were  to  come  into  posses- 
sion of  the  means  of  production  tomorrow,  their  administration 
under  the  most  perfect  form  of  universal  suffrage — which  we 
attained  in  this  country  years  ago  and  have  been  vainly  trying  to 
doctor  into  decent  shape  for  generations  past — would  simply 
result  in  the  creation  of  a  special  class  of  political  managers, 
professing  to  act  for  the  welfare  of  the  majority.  Were  they 
as  honest  as  the  day — which  it  is  folly  to  expect — they  could 
only  carry  out  the  dictates  of  the  majority,  and  those  who  did 
not  agree  slavishly  with  those  dictates  would  find  themselves 
outcasts.  In  reality  we  should  have  put  a  special  class  of  men 
in  absolute  control  of  the  most  powerful  official  machine  that 
the  world  has  ever  seen,  and  should  have  installed  a  new  form 
of  wage  slavery,  with  the  State  as  master.  And  the  working- 
man  who  found  himself  ill-used  by  the  State  would  find  it  a 
master  a  thousand  times  more  difficult  to  overthrow  than  the 
most  powerful  of  private  employers.  The  plain,  bottom  truth  is 
that  all  these  schemes  and  high-sounding  platforms  amount  to 
nothing;  they  are  merely  the  molasses  with  which  the  flies  are 
caught  by  those  who  have  become  inoculated  with  the  poison 
of  political  ambition;  with  the  desire  to  shine  as  orators,  writers, 
or  administrators.  The  institutions,  economical  and  political,  of 
any  set  of  people  do  not  depend  on  written  documents — witness 
the  purely  Anarchistic  Declaration  of  Independence  of  these 
United  States,  which  is  the  deadest  of  all  dead  letters — but  upon 
the  individual  characters  of  the  individuals  who  compose  that 
set  of  people. 

If  the  people  are  infused    with    the    genuine    revolutionary 


SOCIALISM  193 

spirit,  they  will  win  freedom  and  so  mold  and  simplify  their 
institutions  that  tyranny  will  be  impossible.  Contrariwise,  so 
long  as  they  think  they  can  shirk  the  question  and  enjoy  all  the 
inestimable  blessings  of  freedom  while  remaining  timid  sheep, 
avoiding  all  personal  danger  and  trusting  to  a  few  politicians 
to  pull  the  chestnuts  out  of  the  fire  for  them,  they  will  be 
doomed  to  perpetual  disappointment.  No  truer  words  were  ever 
uttered  than  those  of  Shakespeare  when  he  says:  "Alas,  poor 
Caesar !  Caesar  would  not  be  a  wolf  if  Romans  were  not 
sheep."  Always  and  everywhere  it  is  the  sheep  who  beget  the 
wolves  that  prey  on  them. 

Our  quarrel  with  the  Socialists,  therefore,  is  not  a  matter  of 
platforms,  pronunciamentos,  or  doctrinaire  tweedledums  and 
tweedledees,  all  of  which  amount  to  nothing,  but  on  the  truly 
vital  question  of  the  spirit  of  the  whole  movement  for  emancipa- 
tion from  conditions  which  are  universally  admitted  to  be  intol- 
erable. The  Socialists  declare  loudly  that  the  entire  capitalistic 
system  is  slavery  of  the  most  unendurable  type,  and  that  land- 
owning, production,  and  distribution  for  private  profit  must  be 
abolished.  They  preach  a  class  war  as  the  only  method  by 
which  this  can  be  accomplished,  and  they  proclaim,  as  fervently 
as  ever  did  a  Mohammendan  calling  for  a  holy  crusade  against 
the  accursed  infidel,  that  he  who  is  not  with  them  is  against 
them.  For  this  truly  gigantic  undertaking  they  have  adopted 
a  philosophy  and  pursue  means  that  seem  to  us  childishly 
inadequate. 

To  us  it  is  inconceivable  that  institutions  so  deeply  rooted 
into  the  savagery  and  superstition  of  the  past  can  be  overthrown 
except  by  a  people  that  have  become  saturated  to  the  very  mar- 
row of  their  bones  with  loathing  for  such  superstition  and  such 
savagery.  To  us  the  very  first  and  absolutely  indispensable  step 
is  the  creation  of  profoundly  rebellious  spirits,  powerful  individ- 
ualities who  will  make  no  truce,  no  compromise.  We  recognize 
quite  clearly  that  it  is  worse  than  useless  to  waste  our  breath 
on  effects ;  that  the  causes  are  what  we  must  go  for,  and  that 
every  form  of  monopoly,  every  phase  of  slavery  and  oppression, 
has  its  root  in  the  ambition  of  the  few  to  rule  and  fleece,  and 
the  sheepish  willingness  of  the  many  to  be  ruled  and  fleeced. 

It  is  self-evident  to  us  that  the  real  fight  is  against  this 
double  tendency,  and  that  all  authoritarianism  hangs  together 
and  is  of  the  same  piece  of  cloth,  however  different  may  appear 


194  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

the  fantastic  figures  into  which  it  is  cut.  The  superstition  dili- 
gently taught  by  the  priest — Roman  Catholic,  Greek  Catholic, 
Protestant,  or  what  not — is  the  lie  that  upholds  the  divine  right 
of  the  king  and  the  privilege  of  the  politician.  The  patience, 
humility,  and  submission  to  injustice  taught  from  the  pulpit  are 
the  sheet-anchor  of  the  monopolist  who  corners  the  necessities 
of  life  while  thousands  starve,  and  justifies  the  bayonet  of  the 
soldier  and  the  club  of  the  policeman. 

By  the  very  constitution  of  our  being  thought  must  always 
precede  action ;  the  hand  can  only  execute  what  the  brain  has 
previously  dictated.  So  long  as  the  Russian  peasant  really 
believes  that  the  Tsar  is  his  Little  Father,  the  earthly  represen- 
tative of  his  God  in  heaven,  Russian  autocracy  is  safe.  So  long 
as  the  American  believes  that  it  is  right  that  a  Weyerhauser,  a 
Rockefeller,  or  a  Morgan  shall  gather  the  four  corners  of  the 
land  into  his  grasp,  and  that  laws  that  justify  processes  so 
deadly  to  the  life  of  the  masses  are  sacred  and  must  be  upheld 
and  obeyed,  so  long  is  the  present  regime  absolutely  safe.  And 
if  the  proletariat  does  not  know  this,  its  masters  do.  For  how 
comes  it  that  whenever  you  find  a  monopolist  or  a  politician 
greedy  for  power,  there  also  you  will  find  a  pillar  of  the  church, 
a  loud-mouthed  applauder  of  the  gentlemen  in  uniform,  and  a 
champion  at  any  cost  of  what  is  called,  with  unspeakable  irony, 
"law  and  order"? 

Now,  what  is  the  course  that  the  Socialists  are  pursuing  in 
the  political  campaigns  to  which  their  entire  movement  has 
dwindled?  In  private  they  will  tell  you  that  they  are  rebels 
against  the  existing  unnatural  disorder  as  truly  as  are  we  An- 
archists, but  in  the  actual  conduct  of  their  movement  they  are 
autocratic  kaisers,  bent  on  the  suppression  of  all  individuality, 
whipping,  drilling,  and  disciplining  their  recruits  into  absolute 
conformity  with  the  iron-clad  requirements  of  the  party.  In 
private  they  will  tell  you  that  they  hold  precisely  the  views 
that  we  have  just  expressed  respecting  the  support  that  the 
superstition  taught  from  the  pulpit  gives  to  the  present  system, 
but  in  public  'they  are  compromising  with  the  church  at  every 
turn,  and  one  of  the  most  marked  features  of  their  movement 
today  is  the  number  of  ministers  who  are  to  be  found  in  its 
ranks.  In  other  words,  to  the  political  Socialist  the  gaining 
of  a  church  vote  is  of  infinitely  greater  importance  than  the 
exposure  and  overthrow  of  superstition,  and  this  view  we 
pronounce  absolutely  fatal. 


SOCIALISM  195 

The  same  line  of  thought  applies  to  the  tolerance  shown 
toward  our  monstrous  legal  system,  without  which  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  them  to  have  won  to  their  party  the 
host  of  lawyers  who  now  play  such  a  prominent  and  pernicious 
part  in  its  councils. 

They  declare  themselves  occupied  with  a  campaign  of  educa- 
tion. They  are  not.  In  such  a  contest  as  this,  wherein  the  lines 
are  drawn  so  sharply;  where  on  the  one  side  are  ranged  the 
natural  laws  of  life,  and  on  the  other  an  insanely  artificial 
system  that  ignores  all  the  fundamental  laws  of  life,  there  can 
be  no  such  things  as  compromise;  and  he  who  for  the  sake  of 
getting  votes  attempts  to  make  black  appear  white,  is  not  an 
educator  but  a  confidence  man.  We  are  aware  that  there  are 
many  confidence  men  who  grow  into  the  belief  that  theirs  is  a 
highly  honorable  profession,  but  they  are  confidence  men  all 
the  same. 

Of  course,  the  truth  is  that  the  Socialists  have  become  the 
helpless  victim  of  their  own  political  tactics.  We  speak  cor- 
rectly of  political  "campaigns,"  for  politics  is  a  warfare  con- 
ducted, by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  rules  of  military  science.  Its  object  is  to  get  power  by 
gathering  to  its  side  the  majority,  and  then  to  overwhelm  the 
weaker  minority  and  reduce  it  to  absolute  submission.  The 
majority  in  power  then  passes  the  laws  that  suit  its  interests, 
and  to  these  the  conquered  have  to  bend  the  knee,  in  the  name 
of  "law  and  order." 

In  politics,  as  in  every  other  branch  of  war,  the  entire  armory 
of  spies,  treachery,  stratagem,  and  deceit  of  every  kind  is  utilized 
to  gain  the  one-important  end — victory  in  the  fight.  And  it  is 
precisely  because  our  modern  democracy  is  engaged,  year  in 
and  year  out,  in  this  most  unscrupulous  warfare  that  the  basis 
and  all-essential  virtues  of  truth,  honesty,  and  the  spirit  of  fair 
play  have  almost  disappeared. 

The  Socialists — the  self-styled  "Scientific  Socialists,"  if  you 
please — think  they  have  done  a  wonderfully  clever  thing  in 
plunging  into  this  most  demoralizing  strife.  We  Anarchists,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  well  satisfied  to  maintain  a  position  in 
which  we  can  investigate  freely  and  tell  the  people  with  abso- 
lute fidelity  the  truth  of  our  investigations;  in  which  we  are 
not  forced  to  lie  that  we  may  curry  favor ;  in  which  we  have 
no  party  to  bolster  up  by  all  and  every  means,  and  no  frenzied 
dreams  of  power  to  distract  us  from  realities. 


io6  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

While  we  know,  for  the  reasons  given  above,  that  the  late 
Senator  Ingalls  spoke  an  incontestable  truth  when  he  said  that 
"the  purification  of  politics  is  an  iridescent  dream,"  we  realize 
further  that  if  politics  could,  by  any  miracle,  be  purified,  it 
would  mean,  if  possible,  a  still  more  detestable  consummation, 
for  there  would  not  remain  a  single  individual  right  that  was  not 
helplessly  at  the  mercy  of  the  triumphant  majority.  It  is  impera- 
tive, and  especially  for  the  weaker — those  who  are  now  poor  and 
uneducated — that  the  "inalienable"  rights  of  man  be  recognized; 
and  that,  just  as  he  is  now  "supposed"  to  be  guaranteed  abso- 
lute right  of  free  speech  and  assemblage,  and  the  right  to  think 
on  religious  matters  as  he  pleases,  so  in  the  future  he  shall  be 
guaranteed  the  fullest  opportunities  of  supporting  and  develop- 
ing his  life — a  right  that  cannot  be  taken  away  from  him  by  a 
dominant  party  that  may  have  chanced  to  secure,  for  the  time 
being,  the  majority  of  votes. 

This  is  the  rock  on  which  Socialism  everlastingly  goes  to 
pieces.  It  mocks  at  what  are  to  us  the  basic  laws  of  life.  It 
denies,  both  openly  and  tacitly,  that  there  are  such  things  as 
individual  rights,  and,  while  it  asserts  that  assuredly,  as  civilized 
beings,  the  majorities  of  the  future  will  grant  the  minority  far 
greater  freedom  and  opportunity  than  it  has  at  present,  it  has 
to  admit  that  all  this  will  be  a  "grant,"  a  "concession"  from 
those  in  power.  There  probably  never  has  been  a  despot  that 
waded  through  slaughter  to  a  throne  who  has  not  made  similar 
promises. 

We  are  well  aware  that  there  are  many  Socialists  who,  while 
members  of  the  existing  political  party,  think  lightly  of  it,  and 
pin  their  faith  to  the  triumph  of  organized  labor  that  shall  seize 
control  of  the  industries  in  which  it  is  engaged  and  administer 
them  on  a  truly  democratic  basis.  But,  granting,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  such  a  program  should  ever  be  realized,  it  is 
open  to  all  the  objections  just  urged,  if  the  Socialist  philosophy 
that  denies  the  sanctity  of  individual  rights  should  prevail.  In 
each  trade  we  then  should  have  the  majority  machine  in  power, 
and  the  individuals — who  were  so  unfortunate  as  to  belong  to 
the  minority — in  a  position  where  they  would  be  merely 
"conceded"  the  right  to  live. 

Always  and  everywhere,  no  matter  what  the  economic  sys- 
tem or  institution  may  be,  the  way  in  which  a  man  looks  at  a 
subject  will  determine  his  treatment  of  it.  If  he  thinks,  with 


SOCIALISM  197 

the  Socialists,  that  the  collectivity  is  everything  and  the  indi- 
vidual an  insignificant  cipher,  he  will  fall  in  willingly  with  all 
those  movements  that  profess  to  be  working  for  the  good  of 
the  majority,  and  sacrifice  the  individual  remorselessly  for  this 
supposed  good.  For  example:  Although  he  may  admit,  in 
theory,  as  the  Socialists  generally  do,  that  men  should  be  per- 
mitted to  govern  their  own  lives,  his  belief  in  legislating  for  the 
majority,  and  the  scant  value  that  he  puts  on  the  individual 
life,  will  lead  him  to  support  such  movements  as  that  of 
prohibition,  which,  in  the  name  of  the  good  of  the  majority, 
takes  away  from  the  individual,  absolutely  and  in  a  most  impor- 
tant matter, — as  in  the  question  of  what  he  shall  and  shall  not 
drink, — the  command  of  his  own  life. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  ranks  of  the  Socialist  party  in  this 
country  are  today  full  of  prohibitionists,  men  and  women  who, 
while  declaring  that  they  are  working  for  the  emancipation  of 
the  human  race,  see  nothing  inconsistent  in  proposing  to  take 
away  from  it  all  self-government  in  this  one  particular.  It  is 
on  record  that  a  resolution  committing  the  party  to  prohibition 
as  nearly  as  possible  slipped  through  at  its  recent  national 
convention  in  Chicago. 

There  is  nothing  to  be  surprised  at  in  this.  It  is  the  direct 
and  logical  result  of  the  one-sided  view  that  the  ordinary 
Socialist  takes  of  the  social  question.  He  sees  only  the  collec- 
tivity. In  his  thought  it  is  on  the  action  of  the  collec- 
tivity that  the  entire  solution  of  the  social  question  depends. 
The  society  of  the  future  is  to  him  one  in  which  everything 
will  be  done  by  the  collectivity,  acting  as  a  social  unit,  and  in 
his  mental  horizon  the  individual  and  his  rights  are  thrown  into 
absolute  eclipse. 

Platform  and  declarations  of  principles  count  for  nothing. 
A  man  may  belong  to  a  party  that  prints  "emancipation"  in  the 
biggest  of  letters  as  being  its  aim;  he  may  have  emancipation 
perpetually  on  his  lips,  but,  if  he  approaches  the  consideration 
of  social  questions  seeing  only  the  collectivity  and  thinking 
slightly,  or  not  at  all,  of  the  sanctity  of  the  individual,  he  will 
step  down,  and  down,  and  down  on  what  is  really  the  road  of 
tyranny.  The  same  line  of  thought  that  makes  him  willing  that 
the  individual  should  be  put  into  the  strait- j  acket  of  prohibition 
— for  the  alleged  good  of  the  majority  (a  majority  that,  under 
such  circumstances,  would  be  a  worthless  rabble  of  masters  and 

15 


198  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

slaves) — will  bring  him  to  ready  acquiescence  in  all  that  mon- 
strous legislation  that  makes  our  modern  civilization  a  hell  on 
earth  for  the  poor,  who  are  ordered  here  and  restricted  there, 
and  denied  all  access  to  the  natural  opportunities  of  life,  in  the 
name  of  the  public  good. 

Such  a  man  will  readily  be  brought  to  think,  by  the  argu- 
ments of  those  who  are  seeking  their  own  advantage,  that  for 
the  good  of  the  majority  it  is  necessary  that  all  should  be 
taxed  to  support  a  large  standing  army  and  navy,  which  will 
defend  the  fatherland;  and  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  take  him  a 
step  further  and  convert  him  into  a  warm  advocate  of  military 
conscription.  He  will  be  easily  persuaded  that  our  barbaric 
treatment  of  criminals  is  necessary  and  highly  desirable,  by 
reason  of  the  deterrent  influence  it  exercises,  for  the  protection 
and  welfare  of  the  majority.  He  will  persuade  himself  that 
religion  is  a  necessity,  for  the  good  of  the  masses,  and  should 
be  accorded  all  the  special  privileges  it  now  enjoys.  Shortly 
you  will  find  him  with  the  crowd  that  clamors  for  the  closing 
of  all  places  of  amusements  on  Sunday — for  the  good  of  the 
community. 

In  economic  matters  you  will  find  him,  for  example,  indors- 
ing such  a  monstrosity  as  our  protective  tariff,  which,  in  the 
name  of  the  good  of  the  majority,  takes  from  the  individual 
his  natural  right  of  spending  his  earnings  where  he  can  do  the 
best  with  them;  taxes  the  great  masses  for  the  enrichment  of 
the  privileged  few,  and  necessarily  has  resulted  in  the  accumu- 
lation of  those  gigantic  fortunes  against  which  the  whole  world 
is  today  in  revolt. 

In  a  word,  the  man  may  shout  emancipation  until  he  is  black 
in  the  face,  and  may  be  a  prominent  member  of  a  party  that 
does  so,  but,  in  reality,  he  and  his  party  are  both  reactionaries 
of  the  most  pronounced  type ;  indorsing  today,  or  ripe  to  indorse 
tomorrow,  every  piece  of  vicious  class  legislation  that  recom- 
mends itself  for  the  moment  as  affording  a  promise  of  relief. 
At  such  a  mere  shadow  of  a  bone  in  the  water  dogs  of  this 
breed  invariably  will  grasp. 

Apparently  Socialists  cannot  conceive  of  a  society  run  on 
other  than  the  most  strictly  centralized  principles.  This  seems 
to  us  a  profound  error. 

The  most  important  and  powerful  factor  in  production  and 
every  form  of  activity  is  the  human  factor.  This  factor,  longing 


SOCIALISM  199 

more  and  more  for  the  opportunity  of  individual  expression,  is 
in  constant  rebellion  against  all  efforts  to  reduce  it  to  the  level 
of  a  mere  cog  in  a  machine,  economical  or  political.  Being  by 
far  the  strongest  element  it  inevitably  will  win  its  way,  sooner 
or  later,  no  matter  how  adverse  the  conditions  for  the  moment 
may  seem  to  be. 

It  may  have  appeared  within  recent  times  as  if  the  tide  were 
setting  in  permanently  toward  centralization;  but,  in  reality,  the 
forces  of  decentralization,  that  make  the  man  becoming — as  he 
should  be — the  master  instead  of  the  slave  of  the  machine,  are 
sweeping  irresistibly  forward.  The  excessive  and  unnatural 
centralization,  due  entirely  to  the  artificial  laws  of  special  privi- 
lege, which  has  resulted,  for  example,  in  the  steel  trust,  has  had 
the  effect  of  releasing  a  vast  army  of  skilled  and  highly 
ingenious  mechanics,  whose  wits  have  been  industriously  at  work 
devising  simpler  and  simpler  machinery  which  it  will  be  possible 
for  the  individual  to  own  and  operate.  For  instance,  all  the 
splendid  equipment  of  the  Steel  Trust  cannot  manufacture  today 
such  an  article  as  a  screw  as  cheaply  as  can  a  single  individual, 
operating  single-handed  a  machine  that  he  can  run  in  one 
small  room.  - 

We  are  not  in  the  business  of  prophesying,  but  the  notorious 
fact  that  the  Steel  Trust  has  been  steadily  unloading  its  stock 
on  employees  and  the  outside  public  is  itself  significant  as 
indicating  that  the  men  at  the  head  of  these  monstrous  consoli- 
dations are  well  aware  that  they  are  destined  to  break  down  of 
their  own  weight. 

Locomotion  is  the  industry  of  all  others  that  seemed,  by  its 
very  nature,  doomed  to  centralization;  yet  even  in  this  depart- 
ment the  tide  of  decentralization  has  set  in  with  extraordinary 
rapidity.  With  the  advent  of  the  bicycle  came  the  first  break, 
the  individual  machine  becoming  at  once  a  formidable  com- 
petitor of  the  street  car  companies.  The  tendency  received  a 
further  and  enormous  impetus  with  the  introduction  of  the 
automobile,  which  throws  every  highway  open  to  the  individual 
owner  of  the  machine,  and  does  away  with  the  immense 
advantage  previously  enjoyed  by  those  who  had  acquired  the 
monopoly  of  the  comparatively  few  routes  along  which  it  is 
possible  to  lay  down  rails  and  operate  trains.  It  is  obvious 
that  the  automobile,  both  as  a  passenger  and  freight  carrier,  is 
as  yet  only  in  its  infancy,  and  it  is  equally  certain  that  if  the 


200  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

flying  machine  shall  become  an  accomplished  fact,  as  now  seems 
highly  probable,  the  individualism  of  locomotion  will  be  com- 
plete. Have  you  any  idea  of  the  enormous  changes  that  this 
will  involve  in  industrial  and  social  life? 

In  short,  the  philosophy  that  bases  its  conclusions  on  the 
conditions  that  happen  to  prevail  at  any  given  moment  in  the 
machine  industry  is  necessarily  building  on  the  most  shifting 
of  quicksands,  since  the  machine  itself  is  the  most  fluctuating  of 
all  things,  and  is  undergoing  a  veritable  revolution  along  the 
individualistic  lines  we  have  indicated. 

But  this  delusion  respecting  machinery  has  led  the  Socialists 
into  the  most  ridiculous  assumptions  on  the  subject  of  cen- 
tralization in  general,  committing  them  for  a  couple  of  genera- 
tions past  to  the  wild  pipe  dream  that  under  the  regime  of 
capitalism  the  middle  class  is  doomed,  by  the  natural  develop- 
ment of  the  economic  system,  to  speedy  extinction.  The  fallacy 
of  this  position  has  been  shown  over  and  over  again  by  irrefut- 
able statistics,  taken  from  governmental  income  tax  and  similar 
returns,  but  it  is  unnecessary  even  to  quote  figures  in  this 
matter.  Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  put  on  his  obser- 
vation cap  can  see  clearly  for  himself  that  in  such  countries 
as  Mexico  and  Russia,  where  what  is  known  as  the  capitalistic 
system  is  at  present  in  its  infancy,  the  middle  class  is  small  in 
numbers  and  insignificant  in  power.  On  the  other  hand, 
precisely  in  proportion  as  the  capitalistic  system  develops,  the 
numbers  and  influence  of  the  middle  class  increase,  until  here 
in  America — the  country  in  which  capitalism  has  attained  its 
greatest  growth — it  is  this  very  middle  class  that  is  well  nigh 
omnipotent.  To  what  frightful  mistakes  in  tactics  is  a  party 
doomed  that  bases  itself  on  so  gross  and  palpable  an  error! 

The  same  tendency — the  rebellion  of  the  individual  human 
factor  against  the  centralizing  influences  that  seek  to  convert 
him  into  a  mere  cog  in  a  machine — is  equally  apparent  in  the 
political  field.  Necessarily,  as  education  progresses,  the  indi- 
vidual voter  becomes  more  and  more  desirous  of  relying  on  his 
own  judgment  he  is  less  willing  to  vote  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  ticket  for  the  old  reason  that  his  father  and  his 
grandfather  before  him  did  so;  he  takes  other  papers  ami 
attends  other  meetings  than  those  in  which  only  the  one  creed 
is  preached;  he  becomes  more  independent. 


SOCIALISM  201 

The  growing  importance  of  the  independent  vote,  that  is 
emancipating  itself  from  machine  dominance  and  has  to  be  more 
and  more  studied  and  placated  by  the  party  managers,  is  one  of 
the  recognized  features  of  modern  life,  and  in  this  matter  the 
political  Socialists  have  set  their  faces  directly  against  the 
tide  of  progress,  for  their  ideal  is  unquestionably  the  creation 
of  a  party  that  shall  be  thoroughly  disciplined  and  entirely 
under  the  domination  of  the  centralized  machine.  Hence  the 
continual  expulsion  of  all  the  more  independent  spirits  that 
have  the  courage  to  think  for  themselves  and  voice,  however, 
timidly,  views  unwelcome  to  the  truly  papal  infallibility  that  it 
is  the  aim  of  the  managers  to  establish.  More  damnable  treason 
to  the  cause  of  progress,  of  free  thought  and  emancipation  we 
are  incapable  of  imagining;  and  this  is  in  itself  entirely  sufficient 
to  condemn  once  and  for  all,  in  the  eyes  of  all  true  lovers  of 
human  liberty,  the  pretensions  of  the  Socialist  party. 

On  a  still  larger  scale  the  same  tendency  for  individual 
expression  is  manifest  in  the  affairs  of  nations,  the  frantic 
struggles  of  the  weaker  nationalities  to  break  away  from  the 
crushing,  intolerable  centralized  domination  of  great  and  des- 
potic empires  being  one  of  the  most  pronounced  developments 
of  modern  times.  With  all  these  efforts  we  Anarchists  sym- 
pathize profoundly,  and  to  them  we  lend  all  the  aid  in  our 
power,  recognizing  the  claims  of  individual  life  that  is  struggling 
desperately  for  expression.  But,  whatever  they  may  say  here 
and  there  and  from'  time  to  time,  for  the  purpose  of  catching 
votes  and  strengthening  their  political  power,  the  Socialists  do 
not  truly  and  whole-heartedly  sympathize  with  such  efforts,  and 
they  cannot,  because  they  are  wedded  to  the  doctrine  of  cen- 
tralization of  power  and  the  suppression  of  the  individual  for 
the  supposed  good  of  the  larger  collective  body. 

Such  a  pamphlet  as  this  is  no  place  for  scholastic  dis- 
quisitions, but  those  who  have  studied  the  works  of  such  pro- 
found writers  as  Herbert  Spencer,  Buckle,  Sir  Henry  Maine, 
and  others  too  numerous  to  mention,  are  well  aware  that  the 
history  taught  the  Socialists  through  Marx  and  Engels  is  parti- 
san history,  and  that  the  real  movement  of  humanity  has  been  to 
get  away  from  the  military  regime  of  authority  to  the  domain 
of  individual  freedom.  It  is  this  movement  with  which  we 
have  allied  ourselves,  convinced  that  there  is  nothing  too  fine 


202  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

for  man,  and  that  it  is  only  under  conditions  of  freedom  that 
man  has  the  opportunity  of  being  fine.  The  tendency  must  be 
toward  a  finer,  which  means  a  freer,  more  self-governing  life. 

It  is  for  you,  the  individual  reader  of  this  treatise,  to  decide 
with  which  of  these  two  conflicting  forces  you  will  align  your- 
self, for  between  freedom — of  thought,  speech,  and  action— 
and  authority  there  can  be  no  compromise.  The  battle  is  to  the 
finish  and  is  today  on  as  never  before  in  the  world's  history. 


North  American  Review.     189:844-56.     June,  1909 

Private  Property  and  Personal  Liberty  in  the   Socialist  State. 
John  Spargo 

The  most  persistent  and  widespread  antagonism  toward 
Socialism  springs  from  a  belief  that,  under  a  Socialist  regime, 
private  property  in  all  its  forms  would  be  destroyed  and  personal 
liberty  made  impossible  by  the  rule  of  an  immense  bureaucratic 
government.  All  other  objections,  it  may  be  said  without  deny- 
ing their  force,  are  subordinate  to  these  two. 

The  modern  Socialist,  whether  dogmatic  Marxist  or  neo- 
Marxist,  indignantly  denies  both  charges  contained  in  this  crit- 
icism. The  greater  its  persistence,  the  greater  his  vehemence. 
Not  unreasonably,  he  claims  the  right  to  define  the  Socialist  ideal 
in  which  he  believes  and  to  interpret  it  in  his  own  way:  he 
refuses  to  accept  the  dicta  of  the  enemies  of  .Socialism  as  to  its 
meaning.  But,  in  spite  of  indignant  denials,  the  criticism 
prevails. 

For  the  almost  universal  prevalence  of  this  criticism  there 
must  be  some  other  reason  than  malice  on  the  part  of  the  critics. 
Underlying  the  seeming  malevolence  there  is  always  a  very  real 
belief  in  the  disaster  to  the  institutions  of  private  property  and 
personal  liberty  which  must  attend  the  triumph  of  Socialism. 
Instead  of  hatred  creating  the  belief  that  a  Socialist  regime  is 
incompatible  with  personal  freedom  and  with  private  property, 
the  belief,  deep-seated  and  sincere,  however  mistaken  it  may 
prove  to  be,  creates  the  hatred.  It  must  be  remembered,  also,  that 
the  belief  is  not  confined  to  the  malevolent  opponents  of  Social- 
ism and  Socialist  aims.  Many  who  are  very  sympathetic  toward 
the  movement  and  the  ideal,  a  great  army  of  the  "almost  per- 


SOCIALISM  203 

suaded,"  are  held  back  from  giving  their  adherence  to  the  move- 
ment through  fear  that  the  criticism  is  well  founded. 

The  existence  of  such  a  widely  prevalent  belief  must  be  the 
result  of  causes  inherent  either  in  the  principles  of  Socialism  or 
in  tbe  history  of  the  movements  based  upon  those  principles. 
It  is,  therefore,  only  just  that  the  Socialist,  when  he  makes  his 
sweeping  denial  that  Socialism  involves  the  suppression  of 
private  property  and  personal  liberty,  should  be  asked  to  explain 
the  persistence  of  the  fear  he  declares  to  be  groundless — and  this 
only  as  a  prelude  to  an  equally  just  demand  for  a  reasoned 
statement  of  his  own  faith,  so  different  to  the  unfaith  of  the 
world. 

The  frank  and  sincere  Socialist  will  be  slow  to  attribute  the 
criticism  to  malice.  He  will,  on  the  contrary,  be  disposed  to 
admit  that  it  is  a  perfectly  natural  result  of  certain  phases  of 
the  evolution  of  Socialism  and  the  development  of  its  propa- 
ganda. He  will  admit,  with  entire  good  faith,  that  Socialists 
have  given  their  opponents  ample  warrant  for  believing  that  with 
the  coming  of  Socialism  private  property  and  personal  liberty 
must  cease.  No  small  part  of  the  work  of  the  Socialists  of  today 
consists  in  undoing  the  work  of  an  older  generation  of  Socialists. 

Proudhon's  famous  dictum,  "Property  is  robbery,"  and  its 
counterpart,  "Property-holders  are  thieves,"  have  been  so  many 
times  reiterated  by  Socialists,  and  so  often  inscribed  upon  their 
banners,  that  no  sort  of  blame  attaches  to  those  persons  who, 
taking  the  words  at  their  face-value  in  the  currency  of  human 
speech,  have  concluded  that  Socialism  must  abolish  all  kinds  of 
private  property.  Phrases  like  "the  socialization  of  property" 
abound  in  the  literature  of  Socialism,  and  in  more  than  a  few 
Socialist  programs,  issued  in  this  country  and  elsewhere,  Social- 
ism is  objectively  denned  as  "the  social  ownership  and  control 
of  all  the  means  of  production,  distribution  and  exchange."  The 
definition  certainly  justifies  the  belief  that  the  existence  of  a 
Socialist  state  depends  upon  the  abolition  of  private  property. 

Taking  the  definition  literally,  it  is  evident  that  under  Social- 
ism nothing  which  could  be  used  as  a  means  of  producing  or 
distributing  wealth  could  be  privately  owned.  No  man  could 
own  a  spade,  a  hammer  or  even  a  jack-knife,  for  these  are  all 
instruments  of  production.  No  woman  could  own  a  sewing- 
machine,  or  even  a  needle,  for  these  are  tools,  means  of  produc- 
tion. No  man  could  own  a  wheelbarrow,  no  woman  could  own 


204  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

a  market-basket,  these  being  "means  of  distribution."  The  dif- 
ferences between  a  spade  and  a  steam-plough,  between  a  market- 
basket  and  a  delivery  van,  are  differences  in  the  degree  of  their 
efficiency  merely. 

Now,  it  is  quite  evident  that,  if  we  are  to  accept  this  definition 
literally  and  to  regard  "the  social  ownership  and  control  of  all 
the  means  of  production,  distribution  and  exchange"  as  a  sine 
qua  non  of  Socialism,  we  must  accept  the  verdict  that  it  would 
destroy  the  institutions  of  personal  property  and  liberty.  The 
amount  of  property  which  would  not  come  within  the  scope  of 
the  classification,  "all  means  of  production,  distribution  and 
exchange,"  is  almost  a  negligible  quantity,  and  it  is  certain  that 
such  a  vast  bureaucratic  system  of  government  would  be  needed 
as  would  practically  extinguish  personal  liberty.  It  requires  little 
imagination  to  see  how  intolerable  the  despotism  would  be  if 
needles,  spades,  sewing-machines  and  market-baskets  were  to  be 
under  the  control  of  governmental  bureaus. 

But,  when  challenged  upon  this  important  matter,  the  modern 
Socialist  denies  that  the  social  ownership  and  control  of  all  the 
agencies  of  production  and  distribution  is  a  sine  qua  non  of 
Socialism.  He  denies  that  his  aim  is  anything  of  the  kind. 
Socalism,  he  says,  implies  the  social  ownership  and  control  only 
of  certain  kinds  of  property,  certain  very  definite  categories  of 
productive  and  distributive  agencies.  Under  Socialism,  as  he 
conceives  it,  private  property  would  coexist  with  social  property. 
Indeed,  his  claim  is  that  Socialism,  in  very  important  respects, 
would  extend  both  private  property  and  personal  liberty. 

Therefore,  the  question  arises :  What  things,  under  Socialism, 
will  it  be  necessary  to  socialize  and  what  to  leave  in  the  hands 
of  private  owners? 

The  reply  to  this  question  may  take  either  of  two  forms : 
either  we  may  attempt  to  catalog  the  things  which  would  have 
to  be  socialized  in  order  to  realize  Socialism — a  stupendous  task— 
or  we  may  attempt  to  state  the  principle  of  differentiation  in  a 
manner  permitting  its  ready  application  to  any  form  of  property, 
at  any  time,  and  in  any  place.  This  latter  is,  indeed,  the  only 
practical  method  of  dealing  with  the  question.  Not  only  is  the 
former  method  a  cumbersome  one,  involving  the  gigantic  task 
of  making  an  inventory  of  all  kinds  of  property,  but  endless 
revision  of  the  list  would  be  necessary  to  make  it  conform  to 
changing  conditions  and  to  the  needs  of  particular  localities. 


SOCIALISM  205 

Preliminary  to  the  attempt  to  state  the  principles  of  differen- 
tiation, however,  a  brief  discussion  of  the  nature  of  property 
seems  to  be  necessary.  If  we  ask  ourselves,  What  is  Property? 
and,  instead  of  repeating  Proudhon's  classic  epigrammatic  reply, 
attempt  to  answer  the  question  with  the  seriousness  it  demands, 
we  shall  soon  discover  that  much  of  what  we  have  regarded  as 
a  concrete  entity  is,  in  fact,  a  mere  abstraction :  that  property  is 
not  a  tangible  thing,  in  a  vast  number  of  instances,  but  an 
assumed  relation.  We  shall  discover,  too,  that  there  are  no 
absolute  property  rights  anywhere. 

While  it  is  true  that  the  recognition  of  private  property  marks 
the  emergence  of  mankind  from  savagery,  and  that  civilization 
is  commonly  said  to  rest  upon  that  recognition,  the  paradox  is 
nevertheless  true  that  civilization  and  private  property,  in  an 
absolute  sense,  are  incompatible.  The  jurisprudence  of  all  civil- 
ized countries  rests  upon  the  repudiation  of  absolute  property 
rights  of  any  kind  whatever.  Taxation  is,  of  course,  a  familiar 
example  of  the  collective  disregard  of  private  property  rights. 
All  kinds  of  property  have  been  subjected  to  taxation,  the  col- 
lective authority  exercising  the  right  to  take  any  part  of  any 
man's  property,  or  even  the  whole  of  it.  Henry  George's  pro- 
posal to  impose  a  tax  upon  land  values  equal  to  the  sum  total  of 
such  values  is  a  perfectly  logical  extension  of  the  principle  of 
taxation.  A  few  years  ago,  the  city  council  of  Copenhagen, 
Denmark,  applied  the  method  to  the  street  railways  of  that  city 
with  entire  success  so  that  the  owning  companies  were  glad  to 
surrender  the  lines. 

The  powers  of  domain  and  ultimate  ownership  which  underlie 
the  jurisprudence  of  every  civilized  nation  prove  conclusively 
that  there  is  no  allodial  property  in  land,  nor  any  form  of  abso- 
lute private  property.  A  state  or  municipality  desires  land  which 
is  the  "property"  of  one  of  its  citizens  for  some  public  purpose, 
such  as  building  a  hospital  or  a  bridge,  making  a  park  or  a 
roadway.  The  "owner"  of  the  land  does  not  agree  to  sell  it, 
whereupon  the  state  or  the  municipality  takes  the  land  from  him 
— often  at  its  own  valuation !  Even  when  the  land  is  needed  by 
a  quasi-private  corporation,  such  as  a  railway  company,  the  col- 
lective power  is  used  to  take  away  the  ownership  of  the  land 
from  one  citizen  and  transfer  it  to  others. 

It  is  very  commonly  assumed  that  this  power  of  ultimate 
ownership  resting  in  society,  through  its  government,  applies  only 


206  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

to  land;  but,  in  fact,  no  form  of  property  is  exempt  from  it.  Not 
only  may  all  forms  of  property  be  taxed,  but  likewise  all  forms 
of  property  may  be  sequestrated.  The  power  exercised  in  times 
of  martial  law,  of  seizing  food  and  other  supplies,  is  an  example 
of  this.  Under  the  police  powers  of  all  civilized  communities,  in 
case  of  serious  accident  or  disaster,  the  home  of  any  person,  and 
anything  it  contains,  may  be  lawfully  seized  and  used.  Suppose 
that,  during  the  San  Francisco  earthquake  and  fire,  the  "owner" 
of  a  supply  of  food  or  drugs,  or  any  other  vital  necessity,  should 
have  clung  to  them,  asserting  his  "ownership,"  does  any  sane 
person  believe  that  he  would  have  been  permitted  to  enforce  his 
sacred  "rights"  against  the  need  of  the  community?  Nothing, 
not  even  one's  pocket  handkerchief,  can  be  said  to  be  exempt 
from  this  ultimate  power  of  society.  If,  therefore,  one's  hand- 
kerchief is  not  taken  away  from  him,  it  is  simply  because  the 
community  does  not  desire  to  take  it.  In  the  last  analysis, 
private  property  is  an  abstraction.  It  consists  of  nothing  more 
than  a  relation  between  the  community  and  the  citizen,  and  rests 
upon  nothing  more  tangible  than  community  good-will. 

Furthermore,  in  the  development  of  capitalist  society  the 
substance  of  private  property  tends  to  disappear,  quite  irrespec- 
tive of  the  enforcement  of  the  ultimate  powers  of  ownership  by 
society.  Prior  to  the  formation  of  joint-stock  companies,  in  the 
era  of  individual  capitals,  the  investor  who  invested  his  money 
in  a  ship  or  a  factory  could  say  that  the  ship  or  the  factory 
belonged  to  him.  But  with  the  coming  of  the  joint  stock  com- 
pany and  the  development  of  the  great  industrial  corporations, 
that  could  not  be  said.  Suppose  X  to  be  a  shareholder  in  a 
corporation  which  owns  a  cotton-mill.  There  are  a  thousand 
shareholders  owning  between  them  the  ten  thousand  shares  of 
stock  of  the  corporation.  X  owns  ten  shares.  But  he  does  not 
own  a  one-thousandth  part  of  the  physical  properties  of  the 
cotton-mill  in  any  real  sense.  He  could  not,  for  instance,  go  into 
the  mill  and  say:  "Here  are  a  thousand  looms:  one  belongs  to 
me.  I  will  take  it  away." 

What  X  really  owns  is  a  one-thousandth  part  of  every  brick 
in  the  building,  not  a  single  whole  brick ;  a  one-thousandth  part 
of  each  cog  in  every  machine,  but  not  a  single  whole  wheel ;  a 
one-thousandth  part  of  every  yard  of  cotton,  but  not  a  single 
yard  of  actual  cotton.  X  could  not  realize  his  own  property, 
separate  it  from  that  of  the  other  nine-hundred  and  ninety-nine 


SOCIALISM  207 

shareholders  and  do  as  he  pleased  with  it,  To  get  at  his  one- 
thousandth  part  of  a  brick,  he  must  destroy  the  whole  brick. 
To  actually  realize  his  own  property  as  a  physical  entity,  he  must 
destroy  it  and  the  property  of  his  fellows.  And  then,  paradox- 
ically (for  the  whole  capitalist  system  is  a  paradox),  he  does 
not  realize  it  at  all.  When  he  has  destroyed  the  brick  and 
extracted  his  one-thousandth  part  of  it,  he  does  not  own  a  one- 
thousandth  part  of  a  brick,  but  only  some  fragments  of  burned 
clay. 

However  we  look  at  it,  private  property  under  our  present 
social  system  is  an  abstraction.  The  property  of  the  citizen  in 
the  immense  assets  of  the  state  of  New  York,  or  of  the  United 
States  is  just  as  real  as  the  property  of  the  shareholder  in  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation.  But  there  is  this  important  dif- 
ference, that  the  citizen's  share  is  not  negotiable  it  may  not  be 
transferred.  It  cannot  be  gambled  with  in  the  market,  whereas 
that  of  the  shareholder  in  the  corporation  may  be  and  commonly 
is. 

Collective  ownership  is  not  the  ultimate,  fundamental  condi- 
tion of  Socialism.  It  is  proposed  only  as  a  means  to  an  end,  not 
as  an  end  in  itself.  And  that  end,  to  the  attainment  of  which 
collective  ownership  is  a  means,  is  the  fundamental  condition  of 
Socialism.  The  central  idea  of  modern  Socialism,  its  spirit,  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  division  of  society  into  antagonistic  classes. 
The  producers  of  wealth  are  exploited  by  a  class  of  capitalists 
draining  from  them  a  "surplus  value,"  and,  instinctively,  they 
struggle  against  the  exploitation,  to  reduce  the  amount  of  the 
surplus  value  taken  by  the  capitalists  to  a  minimum — ultimately 
to  zero.  To  do  away  with  that  exploitation,  to  destroy  the  power 
of  one  class  to  live  upon  the  labors  of  another  class,  is  the 
Socialist's  aim.  Social  ownership  and  control  are  only  proposed 
as  means  to  the  attainment  of  that  end.  If  other  means  toward 
that  end,  quicker,  more  efficient  or  more  certain  means,  can  be 
found,  there  is  nothing  in  Socialism  to  prevent  their  adoption. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  to  make  collective  property  of 
things  not  used  to  exploit  labor  does  not,  necessarily,  form  a 
part  of  the  Socialist  program.  It  is  easy  to  see  that,  according 
to  this  principle  of  differentiation,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
socialize  the  railroads,  but  not  at  all  necessary  to  socialize  a 
wheelbarrow.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  a  woman  might 
support  herself  through  the  possession  of  a  sewing-machine  who 


208  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

would  otherwise  be  obliged  to  submit  to  exploitation  as  a  factory 
worker.  To  secure  her  the  ownership  of  the  machine  would, 
therefore,  be  no  departure  from  Socialist  principles.  On  the 
contrary,  in  her  individual  case,  the  aims  of  the  Socialist  would 
be  realized  in  that  she  would  be  placed  beyond  the  power  of 
the  exploiter  of  labor.  Similarly,  in  the  case  of  the  farmer 
with  a  small  farm,  and  of  the  craftsman  with  his  own  tools,  or 
of  groups  of  workers  working  cooperatively,  there  is  no  exploi- 
tation; no  surplus  value  is  extracted  from  their  labor  by  any 
outside  parties.  Consequently,  being  neither  exploited  nor 
exploiters,  their  independent  self-employment  is  quite  consistent 
with  Socialism. 

As  the  Socialist  movement  has  outgrown  the  influence  of  the 
early  Utopians,  which  touched  even  Marx  and  Engels,  it  has 
given  up  the  old  notions  of  a  regimentation  of  labor  under  the 
direction  of  the  state.  It  is  increasingly  evident  that  the  Social- 
ists of  today  have  abandoned  the  habit  of  speculating  upon  the 
practical  application  of  their  principles  in  future  society.  They 
are  insisting  more  and  more  that  Socialism  be  regarded  as  a 
principle — namely,  the  conscious  elimination  of  the  power  of  an 
idle  class  in  society  to  exploit  the  wealth-producers.  Whatever 
tends  toward  that  end  of  eliminating  the  exploiter  from  society 
contributes  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Socialist  ideal. 

Instead  of  the  old  contention  that,  in  order  to  have  Socialism, 
every  petty  industry  must  be  destroyed  by  the  power  of  great 
industrial  corporations,  and  every  small  farm  swallowed  up  by 
great  bonanza  farms  of  vast  acreage,  it  is  now  recognized  by 
most  of  the  leading  exponents  of  Socialism  in  this  country  and 
Europe  that  the  small  workshop  and  the  small  farm  may  enter 
very  largely  into  the  economic  structure  of  the  Socialist  state. 
The  small  farm  has  thus  far  proved  capable  of  more  economical 
cultivation  than  farms  of  immense  acreage;  and  it  may  be,  as 
some  authorities  contend,  that  small  workshops  will  prove  quite 
as  economical  as,  or  even  more  economical  than,  great  indus- 
tries when  the  thousand  hampering  restrictions  and  discrimina- 
tions and  privileges  which  favor  their  greater  rivals  are 
removed. 

Should  this  prove  to  be  the  case,  there  would  be  nothing  to 
prevent  a  process  of  decentralization  of  industry  taking  place 
under  Socialism,  a  process  of  decentralization  so  far-reaching 
that  private  ownership  and  individual  production  would  be  much 


SOCIALISM  209 

more  diffused  than  now.  The  participation  of  the  state  in 
industry  would  be  confined  to  the  operation  of  railroads,  mines 
and  other  great  natural  monopolies,  and  to  the  carrying  on  of 
the  great  fundamental  public  services  which  rest  upon  natural 
monopolies,  leaving  to  individual  enterprise  and  voluntary  co- 
operation vastly  more  scope  than  these  enjoy  today  in  produc- 
tion and  distribution.  Needless  to  say,  this  is  not  a  prophecy, 
but  simply  a  statement  of  possibilities. 

The  important  point  to  be  remembered  is  that  there  is  no 
principle  of  scientific  Socialism  which  is  opposed  to  the  con- 
tinuance of  private  property  or  private  industrial  enterprise,  so 
that  it  involves  no  exploitation  of  the  laborer  by  the  non- 
laborer.  It  needs  but  the  statement  of  this  principle  to  demon- 
strate its  truth.  B  is  a  farmer,  working  upon  his  own  small 
farm.  He  exploits  no  man's  labor,  but  manages  to  maintain 
himself  and  family  in  comfort.  C  is  a  shoemaker,  owning  his 
own  little  shop  and  his  own  tools.  He,  also,  exploits  no  man's 
labor,  but  manages  to  support  himself  and  his  family  comfort- 
ably. What  reason  could  the  state  have  for  forbidding  these 
men  to  employ  themselves,  denying  them  the  right  to  exchange 
their  products,  shoes,  for  farm  produce,  and  compelling  them 
to  enter  industrial  or  agricultural  regiments  as  employees  of 
the  state? 

Socialism,  it  cannot  be  too  strongly  emphasized,  is  not  the 
fulfilment  of  a  great  plan  of  social  organization,  the  principal 
feature  of  which  is  that  the  state  owns  and  controls  everything 
and  aims  to  administer  things  with  approximate  equality  of 
benefits  and  duties.  It  is  an  ideal,  objectively  considered,  of  a 
society  in  which  there  is  no  parasitic  class  preying  upon  the 
wealth-producers.  Subjectively  considered,  it  is  a  struggle  on 
the  part  of  the  producers  to  throw  off  the  exploiters,  the 
parasites,  in  order  that  the  ideal  may  be  attained. 

Of  course,  under  Socialism,  as  in  every  civilized  society, 
private  property  of  all  kinds  would  be  subject  to  the  ultimate 
rule  of  society.  The  interests  of  society  as  a  whole,  that  is  to 
say,  would  be  regarded  as  superior  to  those  of  the  individual. 
Subject  to  this  superior  social  right,  there  is  no  reason  why 
private  property  should  not  be  far  more  widespread  under 
Socialism  than  today.  Take,  for  example,  the  matter  of  homes. 
The  great  mass  of  the  people  do  not  own  their  own  homes, 
though  there  can  hardly  be  any  question  that  the  great  mass 


2io  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

of  the  people  desire  to  own  homes  of  their  own.  It  is  con- 
ceivable that  in  a  Socialist  state  of  society  every  person  who 
desired  it  could  own  a  home  for  himself  and  family.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  conceivable  that  the  state  would  have 
any  interest  whatsoever  in  forbidding  the  ownership  of  homes. 
Since  all  families  must  have  homes  in  which  to  live,  whether 
provided  by  the  state  or  otherwise,  there  could  be  no  reason 
for  the  state's  insisting  upon  being  the  universal  landlord. 
Government  ownership  of  dwellings  in  preference  to  the  owner- 
ship of  the  dwellings  of  the  many  by  a  few  extortioners,  cer- 
tainly: but  there  is  no  more  reason,  so  far  as  the  central 
principle  of  Socialism  is  concerned,  for  denying  the  right  of  a 
man  to  own  his  home  than  there  is  to  deny  him  the  right  to  own 
his  hat. 

From  the  foregoing  it  will  be  seen  that  not  only  does 
Socialism  not  involve  the  abolition  of  all  private  property,  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  a  wide  extension  of  private  property  is 
quite  compatible  with  Socialism  as  taught  by  Marx  and  his 
followers.  It  is  not  an  insignificant  thing  that  the  Socialist 
party  of  the  United  States,  in  its  national  platform  of  1904, 
charged  that  "capitalism  is  the  enemy  and  destroyer  of  essential 
private  property."  The  Socialist  protest  against  capitalism  is 
that  it  destroys  the  economic  independence  of  the  producers. 
The  restoration  of  that  independence  is  the  grand  aim  of  all 
Socialist  endeavor. 

Failure  to  recognize  with  clearness  the  principle  set  forth  in 
the  foregoing  pages  produces  inability  to  distinguish  between 
government  ownership  and  Socialism.  Many  persons  marvel 
that  the  Socialists  do  not  hail  with  gladness,  and  join  forces 
with,  the  various  movements  aiming  at  public  ownership  as  they 
arise,  and  thus  achieve  Socialism  piecemeal.  Every  proposal  to 
extend  the  area  of  government  ownership  and  management  is 
at  once  hailed  as  a  "step  toward  Socialism."  For  example,  a 
strong  movement  arises  for  the  government  ownership  of  inter- 
state railroads,  or  of  the  telegraph  system,  and  people  wonder 
that  the  Socialists  preserve  their  equanimity,  stand  aloof,  appar- 
ently unconcerned,  and  decline  to  join  the  movement.  Such 
persons  confound — as  many  Socialists  do — the  external  forms  of 
the  Socialist  program,  its  non-essentials,  with  its  fundamental, 
essential  principle.  They  do  not  see  that  the  form  of  ownership 
is  relatively  unimportant  according  to  the  Socialist  philosophy. 


SOCIALISM  211 

It  is  quite  as  possible  for  a  government  to  exploit  the  work- 
ers in  the  interests  of  a  privileged  class  as  it  is  for  private 
individuals,  or  quasi-private  corporations,  to  do  so.  Germany 
with  her  state-owned  railroads,  or  Austria-Hungary  and  Russia 
with  their  great  government  monopolies,  are  not  more  socialistic, 
but  less  so,  than  the  United  States  where  these  things  are 
owned  by  individuals  or  corporations.  The  United  States  is 
nearer  Socialism  for  the  reason  that  its  political  institutions  have 
developed  farther  toward  pure  democracy  than  those  of  the  other 
countries  named.  True,  in  Germany,  Austria-Hungary,  Russia 
and  other  countries  of  the  old  world,  there  is  a  good  deal  of 
government  ownership,  but  the  governments  are  class  govern- 
ments and  the  workers  are  exploited  for  the  benefit  of  the 
ruling  classes.  Obviously,  the  workers  are  no  better  off  as  a 
result  of  changing  the  channel  of  exploitation  merely,  while  the 
amount  of  exploitation  is  left  unchanged.  The  real  motif  of 
Socialism  is  not  merely  to  change  the  form  of  industrial 
organization  and  ownership,  but  to  eliminate  exploitation. 

To  sum  up :  the  whole  matter  may  be  very  briefly  expressed 
in  the  form  of  a  declaration  of  the  principles,  as  follows: 
Socialism  is  not  hostile  to  private  property,  except  where  such 
property  is  used  to  exploit  the  labor  of  others  than  its  owners. 
The  socialization  of  property  in  the  Socialist  state  would  be 
confined  to  (i)  such  things  as  in  their  nature  could  not  be 
held  by  private  owners  without  subjecting  the  community  to 
exploitation  or  humiliation;  (2)  such  things  as  the  citizens 
might  agree  to  own  in  common  to  attain  superior  efficiency  in 
their  management. 

Granted  the  foregoing  conclusions,  it  is  evident  that  the 
fear  of  a  huge  bureaucratic  government  as  an  inevitable  con- 
dition of  Socialism  loses  its  force.  Such  a  bureaucracy  might 
be  created,  it  is  true,  but  it  would  not  result  inevitably  from 
the  amount  of  administrative  work  involved  in  the  management 
of  all  property  and  "all  the  means  of  production,  distribution 
and  exchange."  In  fact,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  disbelieving 
the  claim  made  by  modern  Socialists  that  the  amount  of  gov- 
ernment control  over  the  individual  would  be  far  less  than  we 
are  now  accustomed  to. 

In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  regulation 
of  capitalistic  property  in  modern  society,  especially  in  the 
great  social  services — such  as  the  railroads,  lighting  companies 


•212  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

and  the  like — involves  an  enormous  amount  of  government 
which,  under  such  a  condition  as  that  suggested  as  belonging  to 
Socialism,  would  be  wholly  superfluous.  When  one  thinks  of 
the  tremendous  amount  of  legislative  and  administrative  effort 
which  experience,  not  theorizing,  has  shown  to  be  requisite  for 
the  restraint  of  capitalist  enterprise,  the  mind  is  staggered  by 
the  stupendous  total.  No  one  knows,  for  it  has  never  been 
computed,  how  much  it  has  cost  the  United  States  during  the 
last  ten  years  to  "regulate"  the  railroads  in  their  relations  to 
the  public.  This  much  we  do  know — that  it  has  been  found 
necessary  to  enact  an  immense  body  of  legislation  for  the 
regulation  of  capitalistic  enterprise.  To  enact  this  legislation 
has  cost  an  enormous  sum  of  money :  to  enforce  it  has  cost  a 
great  deal  more  in  the  way  of  maintaining  an  army  of 
inspectors,  judges  and  officials  of  one  sort  and  another. 

It  has  been  said  in  criticism  of  the  methods  of  conducting 
our  public  services  that  the  amount  actually  spent  in  doing  the 
work  is  in  many  cases  only  a  fraction  of  the  total  cost.  To 
illustrate:  the  actual  operation  of  a  street  railway,  including 
the  men  who  make  the  cars  and  lay  the  tracks,  the  men  in  the 
powerhouse,  motormen  and  conductors,  is  said  to  represent 
less  labor  than  what  may  be  called  the  bookkeeping  of  the 
railway — the  army  of  "spotters,"  inspectors,  collectors,  cashiers, 
clerks,  bookkeepers,  accountants  and  the  like.  Most  of  these 
workers  are  in  reality  parasites;  their  labor  is  only  rendered 
necessary  by  the  preying  of  private  interests  upon  the  body 
social. 

Similarly,  it  may  be  said  that  much  of  our  government  is 
in  a  like  manner  parasitic,  rendered  necessary  only  by  the  prey- 
ing of  private  interests  upon  the  body  social.  The  socialization 
of  all  the  natural  monopolies  and  the  restoration  of  economic 
independence  to  the  great  mass  of  the  people  would  render 
obsolete  an  astonishingly  large  body  of  laws,  many  of  them 
irritating  and  humiliating  to  a  degree  that  is  oppressive,  and 
would  turn  a  large  army  of  workers  from  parasitic  to  genuinely 
useful  occupations. 

Every  abuse  of  capitalism  calls  forth  a  fresh  instalment  of 
legislation  restrictive  of  personal  liberty,  with  an  army  of  pry- 
ing officials.  Legislators  keep  busy  making  laws,  judges  keep 
busy  interpreting  and  enforcing  them,  and  a  swarm  of  petty 
officials  are  kept  busy  attending  to  this  intricate  machine  of 


SOCIALISM  213 

popular  government.  In  sober  truth,  it  must  be  said  that 
capitalism  has  created  and  could  not  exist  without  the  very 
bureaucracy  it  charges  Socialism  with  attempting  to  foist  upon 
the  nation. 

There  is,  then,  nothing  in  Socialism  itself  to  warrant  the 
assumption  that  it  would  enthrall  the  individual  to  the  yoke  of 
a  bureaucratic  government.  There  is  no  reason  for  regarding 
as  impossible  and  absurd  the  assumption  that,  under  a  Socialist 
regime,  the  bounds  of  personal  liberty  would  be  greatly  extended 
and  the  scope  of  government  greatly  narrowed.  Whatever  views 
one  may  entertain  concerning  Socialism,  either  as  an  ideal  or  as 
a  movement,  it  is  necessary  and  just  to  weigh  seriously  the 
claim,  made  in  the  national  platform  of  the  Socialist  party  for 
the  year  1904,  that  it  is  "the  only  political  movement  standing 
for  the  program  and  principles  by  which  the  liberty  of  the 
individual  may  become  a  fact."  And,  further,  that  "it  comes  to 
rescue  the  people  from  the  fast-increasing  and  successful  assault 
of  capitalism  upon  the  liberty  of  the  individual."  That  claim 
cannot  be  waved  aside  by  mere  rhetoric,  nor  silenced  by  abuse. 
The  fact  remains  that  Socialism  menaces  neither  private  prop- 
erty nor  personal  liberty.  There  is  nothing  inconsistent  with 
Socialism  in  the  idea  that  government  interference  with  the 
individual  should  be  as  little  as  possible. 

It  will  be  said,  doubtless,  that  the  principles  and  the  program 
here  sketched  are  those  of  individualism  rather  than  of  Social- 
ism as  commonly  understood.  Granted  that  they  satisfy  the 
man  who  calls  himself  an  individualist,  they  are  not  therefore 
anti- Socialist.  Socialism  is  not  the  antithesis  of  individualism — 
except  individualism  of  the  "devil-take-the-hindmost,"  laissez 
faire  school.  To  that  crude  form  of  individualism,  so-called, 
which  accepts  the  doctrine  that  "might  is  right,"  under  which 
the  assertion  of  one  man's  might  destroys  the  individual  liberty 
of  others,  Socialists  are  opposed,  just  as  the  enlightened  indi- 
vidualist must  be  opposed.  To  the  individualism  that  is  based 
upon  equality  of  opportunity,  the  absence  of  privilege  and  the 
destruction  of  all  artificial  inequalities,  so  that  nature's  in- 
equalities alone  manifest  themselves,  Socialism  is  not  opposed. 
Indeed,  Socialism  comes  as  the  fulfilment  of  that  ideal. 

.  Ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  persons  discussing  this 
subject  not  only  regard  Socialism  as  the  antithesis  of  individ- 
ualism, without  any  qualification  whatsoever,  but  they  make  the 

16 


214  SOCIALISM 

far  more  serious  blunder  of  regarding  the  present  social  system 
— if,  inded,  one  may  use  the  word  "system"  to  connote  our 
industrial  anarchy! — as  a  system  of  individualism.  Nothing 
could  be  more  fallacious  than  this.  The  individualism  of  the 
fathers  of  the  republic,  particularly  of  Jefferson  and  Samuel 
Adams,  bears  no  relation  to  our  present  system  with  its  rami- 
fications of  privilege.  Free  competition  between  man  and  man 
belongs  to  the  concept  of  individualism,  but  not  so  the  com- 
petition, so-called,  which  takes  place  between  the  corporation 
and  the  individual.  To  make  an  artificial  person,  for  legal 
purposes,  of  a  great  corporation  such  as  the  Standard  Oil 
Company,  and  then  to  regard  a  struggle  between  it  and  an 
individual  refiner  or  dealer  as  "free  competition,"  is  to  do 
violence  to  language  and  reason. 

Illustrative  of  the  confusion  of  thought  upon  this  subject 
which  pervades  all  ranks  of  society,  we  have  the  declaration  of 
the  Ohio  Republican  convention,  in  asserting  the  claims  of  Mr. 
Taft  to  be  the  successor  of  President  Roosevelt,  that  the  issue 
in  American  politics  in  the  year  1908  is  "individualism  against 
Socialism" — the  Republican  party  and  Mr.  Taft  representing 
individualism !  Could  anything  be  more  grotesque  than  the 
application  of  the  word  individualism  to  the  Rooseveltian  poli- 
cies? Could  the  word  be  more  abused  than  by  its  application 
to  the  Republican  party  program?  If  Socialism  represents  one 
side  of  the  issue  fought  out  in  our  national  politics  last  year, 
the  other  side  is  not  individualism,  but  capitalism  with  its  privi- 
leges, its  invasions  of  personal  liberty,  its  artificial  inequalities 
and  its  economic  servitude  of  class  to  class. 

The  Socialist  ideal  may  be  vain  and  chimerical,  but  no  think- 
ing person  can  deny  that  the  influence  of  the  ideal  upon  masses 
of  our  citizens  is  a  wholesome  one.  The  political  Socialist 
movement  may  spend  itself  blazing  trails  for  others  to  follow, 
opening  a  way  to  a  promised  land  it  may  not  enter;  but  the 
world  will  be  the  better  for  its  existence.  Fanaticism,  in  the 
name  of  Socialism,  and  under  its  banners,  may  seek  to  do  away 
with  private  property  and  personal  liberty;  but  that  will  be  a 
caricature  of  the  Socialism  for  which  so  many  millions  of 
earnest  men  and  women  in  all  lands  are  living  lives  of 
consecrated  sacrifice. 


DEFINITIONS  OF  CONTEMPORARY 
SOCIALISM 

American  Economic  Association  Bulletin.    4th  Series. 
i:347-54.    April,  191 1 

An  Attempt  to  Define  Socialism.    John  Martin 

Definitions  of  Socialism  are  almost  as  numerous  as  the  com- 
batants for  and  against  Socialism.  Unbelievers  claim  the  same 
right  as  believers  to  define  the  term,  as  Mark  Twain  said  people 
should  spell  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience. 
The  results  are  confusion  and  misunderstanding,  muddy  think- 
ing and  a  woeful  working  at  cross  purposes  in  matters  of 
national  importance.  So  bewildering  is  the  babel  of  voices  that 
some  people  deny  that  Socialism  can  be  defined  at  all. 

Preparatory  to  this  symposium  I  inquired  the  opinion  of  some 
leading  economists  and  publicists  upon  the  meaning  of  the  term 
and  among  the  replies  are  the  following: 

Professor  John  H.  Gray  says :  "You  seem  to  have  tackled  a 
phantom,  a  will-o'-the-wisp.  The  term  has  no  fixed  or  well- 
defined  meaning.  In  the  eyes  of  the  interests  Socialism  means 
any  proposition  to  take  away  any  power,  legal  or  illegal,  good 
or  bad,  that  the  interests  now  suppose  themselves  to  possess." 

Professor  Davis  R.  Dewey  writes :  "It  has  never  seemed  to 
me  possible  to  define  the  word  so  as  to  make  it  serviceable  for 
general  discussion.  Socialism  represents  a  movement.  I  do  not 
see  that  it  admits  of  sharper  definition  than  Christianity,  or  bar- 
barism, or  culture.  .  .  .  The  discussion  has  gone  too  far  and 
the  term  is  too  widespread  to  bring  down  to  any  definition." 

Professor  Simon  Patten  declares,  "I  cannot  define  Socialism. 
It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  composite  of  several  thought  movements, 
each  of  which  has  separate  causes." 

However,  I  am  glad  to  report  that  this  despair  and  bafflement 
are  not  universal — not  even  characteristic.  The  great  majority 
of  those  I  have  asked,  all  of  them  qualified  to  speak  with  author- 
ity, not  only  give  a  definition,  but  their  definitions  come  remark- 


216  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

ably  close  together.  They  show  little  of  those  wide  variations 
as  to  the  meaning  of  the  term  which  distinguish  the  speeches  of 
politicians  on  the  stump  and  propagandists  on  the  rampage. 

The  briefest  is  by  Professor  T.  N.  Carver,  to  whom  "Social- 
ism is  the  public  ownership  and  operation  of  all  the  means  of 
production."  This  is  closely  allied  with  the  definition  given  by 
Mr.  William  Jennings  Bryan  in  an  essay  of  which  his  secretary 
kindly  sends  me  a  copy  as  answer  to  my  inquiry.  "Socialism," 
writes  Mr.  Bryan,  "is  the  collective  ownership,  through  the  State, 
of  all  the  means  of  production  and  distribution."  If  Mr.  Bryan's 
ownership  be  taken  to  include  management,  as  other  sentences 
in  his  essays  indicate  it  does,  and  if  Professor  Carver  considers 
that  distribution  is,  as  an  economic  process,  only  a  stage  of 
production,  then  Harvard  and  Nebraska  are  practically  in 
agreement. 

Professor  Henry  R.  Seager  elaborates  this  a  little.  "Social- 
ism," he  says,  "is  a  proposed  reorganization  of  industrial  society 
which  would  substitute  for  the  private  ownership  of  land  and 
the  instruments  of  production  public  ownership,  and  for  the 
private  direction  and  management  of  industry,  direction  and 
management  through  public  officials." 

Notice  that  this  definition  does  not  specify  that  all  the  means 
of  production  be  owned  by  the  public.  Similarly,  Professor  Carl 
E.  Perry  stipulates,  "the  common  ownership  and  operation  of 
substantially  all  productive  instruments."  The  same  point  is 
made  by  a  thoughtful  advocate  of  Socialism,  Mr.  W.  J.  Ghent, 
whose  definition  runs  as  follows :  "Socialism  is  the  collective 
ownership  and  democratic  management  of  the  social  means  of 
production  for  the  common  good."  "Not  all  the  means,"  he 
continues,  "for  it  is  entirely  probable  that  many  of  the  smaller 
industries  may  justly,  and  with  due  regard  for  social  efficiency, 
be  left  in  private  hands." 

Professor  Richard  T.  Ely,  in  a  definition  originally  given  in 
his  work  "Socialism  and  Social  Reform" — a  definition  which  he 
tells  me  he  would  not  change  today — adds  another  idea.  "Social- 
ism," he  says,  "is  that  contemplated  system  of  society  which 
proposes  the  abolition  of  private  property  in  the  great  material 
instruments  of  production,  and  the  substitution  therefor  of 
collective  property;  and  advocates  the  collective  management  of 
production,  together  with  the  distribution  of  social  income  by 
society,  and  private  property  in  the  larger  proportion  of  this 
social  income." 


SOCIALISM  217 

Probably  the  definitions  before  quoted  may  be  taken  to  imply 
the  idea  fully  expressed  in  the  last  clause  of  Mr.  Ely's  definition, 
that  Socialism  contemplates  private  property  in  the  larger  pro- 
portion of  social  income.  Others  reach  the  same  goal  by  con- 
sidering the  proposals  of  Socialism  with  regard  to  the  institution 
of  property  as  fundamental.  Professor  David  Kinley  considers 
that  Socialism  "in  essence  calls  for  a  new  law  of  property,  to 
the  extent  of  taking  from  individuals  and  giving  to  society  as  a 
group  all  property  rights  in  land  and  the  instruments  of  pro- 
duction" and  Professor  J.  W.  Crook  writes  that  "the  term 
Socialism  might  wisely  be  confined  to  that  plan  of  social  or 
economic  reform  which  would  eliminate  profits  and  interest  by 
doing  away  with  the  institution  of  private  property  in  productive 
wealth  and  substituting  therefor  public  ownership  of  the  means 
of  production." 

These  definitions  are  more  exact  than  an  analagous  definition 
enunciated  by  President  Taft  in  a  speech  delivered  at  the  Ohio 
Northern  University,  an  extract  from  which  his  secretary  kindly 
sent  me  as  authoritative.  "Speaking  generally,"  said  the  Presi- 
dent, "of  the  issues  which  are  likely  to  be  presented  to  you 
students  in  the  future,  I  think  the  issue  of  most  importance  will 
be  the  question  of  the  preservation  of  our  institution  of  private 
property,  or  its  destruction,  and  the  substitution  of  a  certain 
kind  of  cooperative  enjoyment  of  everything,  which  is  the  ideal 
of  Socialism." 

You  will  notice  that  the  President  does  not  confine  the  pro- 
posed joint  enjoyment  to  the  means  of  production.  He  appears 
to  hold  that  Socialism  would  preclude  the  private  ownership  of 
any  part  of  that  Social  income  which  Professor  Ely  expressly 
stipulates  will  "in  the  larger  proportion  be  held  as  private 
property." 

It  would  be  too  tedious  to  quote  other  definitions  to  similar 
effect. 

From  all  the  definitions  submitted  there  are  significant  omis- 
sions. Not  a  single  person  even  mentions  free  love  or  the 
disruption  of  the  family  as  having  any  relation  to  socialism. 
I  may  say,  however,  in  this  connection,  that  Colonel  Roosevelt 
did  not  reply  to  my  inquiry. 

Further,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  the  class  war, 
nor  of  the  materialistic  conception  of  history,  except  that  Pro- 
fessor Wenley  refers  to  the  latter  as  the  basis  of  the  desire  "to 
vest  all  sources  of  wealth  in  the  central  government." 


2i8  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

To  sum  up,  the  great  majority  of  my  correspondents  agree 
that  the  definition  of  Socialism  must  include  the  following 
points : 

1.  Public  ownership  of  nearly  all  the  means  of  production. 

2.  Operation  of  these  means  of  production  by  public  officials. 

3.  Distribution  of  the  income  according  to  rules  determined 
by  the  community. 

4.  Private  ownership  of  the  income  so  distributed. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  these  points  are  included  in  the  defini- 
tion officially  adopted  by  the  National  Executive  Committee  of 
the  Socialist  party  of  America,  which  runs :  "Socialism  is  the 
modern  movement  of  the  working  class  to  abolish  the  private 
ownership  in  the  social  means  of  production  and  distribution, 
and  to  substitute  for  it  a  system  of  industry,  collectively  owned 
and  democratically  managed  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people." 

Notice  that  the  Socialist  party  adds,  however,  an  idea  which 
is  not  mentioned  by  any  economist  I  have  consulted.  The  party 
executive  says  that  Socialism  is  the  modern  movement  of  the 
working  class  to  secure  what  I  have  just  defined  as  Socialism. 
To  them  the  movement  and  its  working-class  character  are 
essential.  A  party  formed  to  advance  any  cause  is,  perhaps,  of 
necessity,  as  much  concerned  about  tactics,  strategy,  discipline, 
and  pass-words  as  about  the  soundness  of  its  philosophy  or  the 
practicality  of  its  aim.  The  Socialist  party  of  America,  the 
lineage  of  which  is  more  clearly  German  than  English,  attaches 
importance  to  the  materialistic  interpretation  of  history  and  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  class  war  as,  jointly,  both  indicating  and 
justifying  the  only  method  by  which,  they  say,  Socialism  can  be 
installed,  namely,  by  the  organization  of  those  persons  who  do 
not  possess  property  into  a  political  party  which,  acting  inde- 
pendently of  all  other  parties,  will  have  as  its  sole  aim  the  estab- 
lishment of  Socialism.  Their  belief  is  that  persons  possessing 
property  will  inevitably,  with  exceptions  so  few  as  to  be  neglig- 
ible, by  their  material  interests  be  led  to  oppose  Socialism ;  while 
the  non-possessors,  also  with  only  few  and  negligible  exceptions, 
must  ultimately,  when  they  understand  the  case,  become  class- 
conscious  and  approve  Socialism.  This  is  not  the  time  to  discuss 
the  validity  of  those  beliefs,  nor  the  correctness  of  that  simple 
division  of  society  into  two  classes. 

I  must  point  out,  however,  that  this  major  doctrine  of  the 
Socialist  political  party  in  America — a  doctrine  to  which  appli- 


SOCIALISM  219 

cants  for  party  membership  are  usually  asked  to  subscribe — has 
no  place  in  any  of  the  definitions  of  Socialism  which  I  have 
received.  If  we  accept  the  definition  which  I  have  previously 
analyzed,  a  person  might  legitimately  be  classed  as  a  Socialist 
and  yet  not  be  a  member  of  the  Socialist  party,  exactly  as  a 
person  may  be  a  Christian  without  joining  a  church,  or  a  Demo- 
crat or  a  Republican  without  enrolling  as  a  member  of  the 
Democratic  or  Republican  party. 

Though  the  labels  Democratic  and  Republican  have  been 
appropriated  by  political  parties,  yet  democracy  and  republican- 
ism remain  independent  of  party  platforms,  contortions,  or 
evasions,  and  debatable  as  methods  of  political  or  social  organi- 
zation irrespective  of  the  ballot  cast  by  the  disputants  at  elec- 
tions. A  student  contrasting  American  with  English  or  German 
government  might  proclaim  himself  a  Republican  though  he 
voted  for  Mr.  Bryan;  and,  speaking  of  Russian  society,  he 
might  proudly  assert  he  was  a  Democrat,  though  he  voted  for 
Mr.  Taft.  In  neither  case  would  it  occur  to  his  party  to  object. 
Similarly,  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  "Socialist,"  as  a  party 
badge,  may  come  to  have  little  or  no  relation  to  Socialism  as  a 
form  of  social  and  industrial  organization — the  strength  and 
weakness,  the  drawbacks  and  advantages,  of  which  may  be 
discussed  without  any  reference  to  the  way  a  man  votes. 

Theoretically  that  divorce  between  party  label  and  abstract 
doctrine  is  already  clear;  but,  practically,  while  a  party  is  young 
and  struggling  for  power,  and  while  it  is  filled  with  a  fervor 
almost  religious,  it  finds  it  impossible  to  display  that  broad 
toleration  which  would  permit  profane  lips  to  employ  its  sacred 
phrases,  or  unsanctified  persons  to  preach  its  pure  doctrine. 
Socialism  possesses  a  literature,  a  tradition,  a  status  abroad,  and 
the  dignity  of  being  a  world  movement,  the  glory  of  which  it  is 
easy  to  understand  that  those  who  bleed  and  suffer  and  sacrifice 
in  its  name  are  not  willing  to  forego. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  party  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  called  themselves  Republicans,  because  they  had  been 
charged  by  their  opponents  with  desiring  to  run  to  the  extremes 
of  the  democratic  or  mob  rule  which  had  been  exemplified  in 
Paris.  They  therefore  rejected  the  name  of  Democrats  for 
which  the  father  of  their  party  had  ever  shown  a  fondness, 
and  not  till  about  1805  did  they  begin  to  adopt  it  and  to  turn 
an  epithet  into  a  badge  of  honor. 


220  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

But,  nowadays,  the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties,  find- 
ing no  considerable  section  of  citizens  denouncing  or  deriding 
abstract  democracy  or  republicanism,  and  being  daily  fed  with 
the  solid  sustenance  of  office  and  power,  feel  no  pain  in  differ- 
entiating between  themselves  and  the  broad  doctrines  which 
carry  their  label.  But  the  Socialist  party  is  in  a  less  halcyon 
state.  Struggle,  defeat,  and  famine  are  its  accustomed  portion; 
and,  therefore,  it  is  comprehensible  that  it  should  highly  value 
the  intangible  glories  of  tradition  and  orthodoxy.  Therefore, 
probably  for  several  decades,  the  political  party  will  claim  the 
right  to  decree  what  persons  and  measures  possess  the  true 
hall-mark;  and  calm  discussion  of  Socialism,  in  whatever  way 
we  here  agree  to  define  it,  will  continue  to  be  hampered  by 
its  association,  in  the  public  mind,  with  a  particular  political 
party. 

It  remains  for  us  to  explore  the  boundary  line  between 
Socialism  and  its  counterpart,  individualism,  where  we  may  find 
some  unexpected  terra  incognita. 

Prof.  T.  N.  Carver,  in  presenting  his  definition,  says  that 
"The  ideal  of  Socialism  is  not  at  all  different  from  the  ideal 
of  individualism.  Both  are  aiming  at  approximating  nearer 
and  nearer  to  equality.  Socialists  think  this  can  be  achieved 
better  through  public  ownership  and  operation  of  the  means  of 
production.  Individualists  think  it  can  be  achieved  better 
through  the  preservation  of  the  institution  of  private  property 
and  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production,  though  not 
to  the  entire  exclusion  of  public  ownership  in  some  things. 
One  is  not  a  Socialist  by  virtue  of  his  belief  in  the  public 
ownership  of  some  things.  ...  If  one  believes  there  are 
some  means  of  production  that  are  well  adapted  to  public 
ownership  and  others  that  are  better  Adapted  to  private 
ownership,  he  is  not  a  Socialist  but  an  individualist." 

More  precisely,  Mr.  William  Jennings  Bryan  says,  "Individ- 
ualism is  the  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  production  and 
distribution  where  competition  is  impossible." 

Prof.  Frank  A.  Fetter  holds  that  "the  name  individualist  is 
to  be  applied  to  the  person  who,  at  any  given  stage  of  social 
advance  doubts  the  efficacy  of  relying  on  the  associative  motives 
and  emphasizes  the  importance  of  giving  play  to  the  emulative 
and  competitive  motives  as  a  means  of  securing  the  activity  and 
energy  required  for  progress  in  social  organization.  The  name 


SOCIALISM  221 

Socialist  is  to  be  applied  to  the  person  who,  at  a  given  moment, 
minimizes  the  importance  of  individualistic  motives,  emphasizes 
the  need  of  limiting  and  controlling  the  competitive  activities  in 
society,  and  believes  not  only  in  the  need,  but  in  the  practicabil- 
ity of  gaining  social  progress  by  developing  at  that  time  more 
associative  and  altruistic  action." 

Unless  our  definition  specifies  the  character  of  the  means  of 
production  which  individualism  would  give  over  to  public 
ownership,  the  distinction  between  individualism  and  Socialism 
is  so  blurred  as  to  be  hardly  distinguishable.  If  we  simply 
affirm  that  individualism  sanctions  public  ownership  of  some 
means  of  production  and  Socialism  the  private  ownership  of 
some  means  of  production,  or  that  the  difference  between 
Socialism  and  individualism  is  only  a  matter  of  emphasis,  then 
the  classification  of  a  particular  proposal  to  transfer  an  industry 
from  private  to  public  ownership  is  impossible.  It  may  be  an 
instalment  of  Socialism  or  a  retention  of  individualism. 

For  instance,  the  existing  federal  ownership  and  operation 
of  vast  irrigation  works,  involving  the  expenditure  of  millions 
of  dollars,  the  employment  of  thousands  of  men  and  the  creation 
of  hundreds  of  farms — is  that  Socialism  or  individualism?  Can 
a  measure  be  a  piece  both  of  individualism  and  Socialism?  Is 
there  a  wide  margin  between  the  two,  belonging  to  neither 
exclusively,  a  sort  of  hinterland  over  which  both  may  freely 
wander,  neither  challenging  the  other  as  trespasser? 

If  individualism  permits  the  public  ownership,  as  Mr.  Bryan 
asserts,  only  of  those  means  of  production  in  which  competition 
is  practically  impossible,  the  classification  of  measures  or  pro- 
posals is  more  easy,  though  Socialism  is  then  stripped  of  a 
large  territory  over  which  it  had  flown  its  flag.  Municipal 
ownership  and  operation  of  water,  lighting,  and  transportation 
plants,  and  state  ownership  of  railways,  telegraphs,  and  tele- 
phones then  become  embodiments  of  individualism — though,  I 
imagine,  Herbert  Spencer  and  the  Manchester  school  of  econo- 
mists will  turn  over  in  their  graves  at  the  news. 

But,  in  any  case,  is  a  statesman  consistent  who  denounces 
Socialism  over  night  and  recommends  Congress  next  day  to 
establish  a  line  of  merchant  vessels  to  be  owned  by  the  nation 
and  operated  by  public  officials  between  the  Panama  isthmus  and 
San  Francisco?  Is  such  a  statesman  consistent  even  in  con- 
demning Socialism  per  se,  while,  as  secretary  of  war,  he  is 


222  SELECTED  ARTICLES  ON 

administering  a  fleet  of  steamers,  owned  and  operated^  by  the 
nation  and  running  between  New  York  and  Panama?  Clearly, 
competition  is  not  practicably  impossible  between  steamship 
lines.  If  we  allow  that  such  a  sample  of  government  enterprise 
is  not  tainted  with  Socialist  principle,  where  shall  the  boundary 
between  Socialism  and  individualism  be  staked? 

Does  individualism  consent  to  the  government  ownership  and 
cultivation  of  wide-stretching  forests,  with  nurseries,  planters, 
rangers,  and  fire  wardens,  with  the  leasing  of  grazing  privileges, 
the  sale  and  removal  of  ripe  timber,  and  all  the  other  acces- 
sories of  a  great  business,  conducted — all  by  public  officials — 
for  profit?  Has  individualism  no  more  objection  than  Socialism 
to  the  continued  government  ownership  of  deposits  of  oil,  gas, 
phosphate  rock,  and  of  coal  beds  of  incalculable  value,  all  to  be 
held  in  trust  for  the  people  and  worked  under  leases  that  control 
the  methods  of  exploitation,  the  conditions  of  the  workmen,  the 
royalties  to  be  paid  into  the  public  treasury,  and,  perhaps,  the 
prices  to  be  charged  the  consumer?  Is  the  whole  policy  of  the 
conservation  of  natural  resources  as  presented  by  its  authors  an 
incarnation  of  individualism,  or  is  it  a  member  of  the  great 
Socialist  family,  simply  washed  and  dressed  and  adopted  into  a 
respectable  household? 

We  have  nothing  to  do  here  with  the  political  consequences 
of  the  correct  labeling  of  political  measures.  Even  if  we  agree 
as  economists  upon  definitions  which  will  help  to  clear  our  own 
thought  and  will  aid  college  students  to  be  intellectually  honest, 
we  cannot  enact,  and  we  would  not  if  we  could,  any  pure  poli- 
tics law  which  would  compel  the  correct  and  honest  labeling 
of  party  proposals  and  protect  the  public  from  misbranded 
goods. 

Perhaps,  as  Prof.  Henry  W.  Farnam  suggested  in  his  ad- 
dress to  the  Association  for  Labor  Legislation  at  the  Atlantic 
City  meeting,  some  new  term  is  needed  to  designate  the  policy 
which  is  neither  individualistic  nor  Socialistic,  the  new  type 
which  has  already  developed  between  the  two  old  well  marked 
species,  a  hybrid  with  characteristics  derived  from  both  parents, 
each  of  which  claims  it  for  its  own,  to  both  of  which  it  is  a 
beautiful  child,  and  neither  of  which  is  willing  to  forego  the 
claims  of  parenthood. 

If  a  new  term  be  adopted,  New  Nationalism,  as  suggested  by 
Mr.  Croly  in  "The  Promise  of  American  Life,"  Meliorism,  In- 


SOCIALISM  223 

surgency,  or  what  not,  economists  will  be  justified  in  asking  for 
an  exact  definition  of  its  content.  If  political  philosophies  and 
economic  doctrines  merge  into  each  other  like  the  colors  of  the 
rainbow,  passing  from  revolutionary  red  right  through  to  royal 
violet  without  perceptible  break,  then  straight  thinking  and 
intellectually  honest  politics  are  hardly  attainable. 

Pending  the  presentation  of  such  a  term,  acceptably  defined, 
I  see  no  more  hopeful  prospect  than  to  disinfect  the  term  So- 
cialism of  the  virulent  germs  with  which  unauthorized  persons 
have  impregnated  it;  and  then  to  give  Socialism  the  same  im- 
partial, impersonal  investigation  to  which  chemists  subject  a 
new  food,  or  a  fresh  carbon  compound  which  promises  an  easier 
life  for  mankind. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


COT  19  \^ 

CCT  20   01$ 

APR  19  194 

6 

YUr23'^CP 

r       3Qlan'56K> 

:  \SJLJ     -  -     > 

AD 

LD  21-100m-7,'39(402s) 

597 


'RV 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


